Loading...
2003 04-17Planning and Zoning Meeting April 17, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, April 17, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Leslie Mathes, David Zaremba, and Michael Rohm. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, David McKinnon, Jill Holinka, Jessica Johnson, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll call Attendance: ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good Evening. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for April 17th and start with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of March 6, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting B. Approve minutes of March 26, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Borup: The first item would be that of minutes of March 6th and March 26th meetings. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I have a comment on the minutes of March 6, 2003. On the cover sheets, Page 2 of 2, the second cover sheet, Item 8 for Public Hearing PP 03-001, the acreage was changed. What we recommended approval of was 10.284 acres, not 9.996. On Item 11, the number of lots changed. Preliminary Plat approval for 49, not 50, building lots and eight, not six, other lots. Those are my only comments. Borup: Okay. Do we have a motion on the minutes? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 2 of 90 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of March 6, 2003, as amended, and the minutes of March 26, 2003. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. MCU 03-001 Request for a Modification of Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of the building and change orientation of the building on the site for Bodily RV by Insight Architects, PA – northeast corner of Overland and Linder Roads: Borup: Thank you. Our first regular item is MCU 03-001, a Request for Modification of a Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of the building and change the orientation, et cetera, for the site of Bodily RV by Insight Architects. I'd like to -- this is not a Public Hearing, is it? McKinnon: No. Borup: Okay. We'd like to begin with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On the overhead, I have highlighted the area that we will be talking about tonight. It's located on the corner -- northwest corner of Linder and Overland Road. This is an overhead aerial photo of how the site existed last time you approved this project. Just for your memory and for those of you that weren't serving on the board, this was approved in 2001. The Hardin Drain runs diagonally bisecting the property and this property was heavily scarred from mining -- gravel mining in the area. Since the time we approved this, the applicant has received an agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to go ahead and tile the Hardin Drain, they have relocated it down on the southern portion of the property, and it's now tiled. In addition to the large scarring that was existing on the site, the application has reclaimed the site and it's now a large level field. This is what it looks like today. It looked very different just a year or two ago. When this project first came in front of you, the only area that was being asked to be developed at that time was the area adjacent to I-84 on the north. They were leaving this area open, because of the heavy scarring and the fact that the Hardin Drain bisected the property. Now that the property is entirely level, they would like to make their project a little bit bigger, going from a 2,500 square foot office, show room area, to 32,000 feet. As you can see here, now they'd like to incorporate the entire area. I have had a chance to talk with the applicant -- and I know you all have a copy of Brad Hawkins-Clark's staff report. In the staff report, there were two items that he brought up, besides the fact and emphasis that this is not a Public Hearing and no additional changes should be added. This is one -- the applicant's new Site Plan only shows 22 feet of landscaping buffer adjacent to I-84. City code and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law from the original Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 3 of 90 approval required 50 feet and we are going to stick the applicant with the 50 feet. I have talked with the applicant and he agrees to do 50 feet now, rather than the 22 as shown, and they will make amendments to their Site Plan. In addition to that, the applicant had requested gravel for their parking area. Brad Hawkins-Clark, on the final page of his report, in the final paragraph, states that staff feels that reclaimed asphalt material that is oiled and rolled would be sufficient for that condition. If the applicant desired to retain any graveled areas, they would have to come back with a Public Hearing to modify the Conditional Use Permit as a major modification and go through the Public Hearing process. Again, I have talked with the applicant tonight and he expressed their approval to use recycled asphalt and oil and roll it, so I don't believe that there is anything that we are in objection to at this time. I'd ask if you have any questions. The staff supports this request for modification. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Mr. Chairman so, you're saying, Dave, that Item 3 on Page 2, you're sticking to the 50 feet? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: And I read the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District letter. It's confusing to me. McKinnon: Okay. Centers: Do you have it? McKinnon: I do. Centers: You know there is no comment on the above-referenced modification. However, the License Agreement in place was to relocate the Hardin Drain only, which they have done. No encroachment or drainage has been addressed. Once these problems have been addressed, then, this project will be acceptable. I guess we just want that on the record for this applicant to know that they have got to satisfy the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. McKinnon: Duly noted. Centers: All right. Borup: Any other questions? Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 4 of 90 Zaremba: Let me just kind of understand my interpretation. This is not -- this does not need to go through a new CUP and have a hearing, because it's such a minor change from the original? Is that based on -- on Page 2, Paragraph 1, where the increase in building size is 134 percent? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, in the adopted Meridian City Code there are provisions that would allow the staff to approve anything that's a modification that's less than 20 percent of an increase in size. It doesn't allow us to do any more than that and it says that the Planning and Zoning Commission have the ability to review anything larger than that at the expansion. It would not have to be through the Public Hearing process and that's the reason that it's before you tonight, because just we couldn't approve it. Zaremba: And that's based on the thought that it's only going up 34 percent? McKinnon: 134 percent. Zaremba: Well, 100 percent would be exactly the same size 134 percent would be approximately 3,000 square feet. They are going to 32,000 square feet, which is 1,000 percent. McKinnon: Okay. Brad may have changed the math on that, just doing it in my head, if we took that as 13 times the size that was originally proposed. Zaremba: It is about 13 times the original. McKinnon: Right. Zaremba: I'm questioning how minor of a modification that is. That's -- not only are we talking about the whole property and 13 times the size of building, I would have thought this is not a minor change. McKinnon: The decision was made by -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the decision that this was a minor modification was made the acting Planning and Zoning Director Brad Hawkins-Clark after reviewing the submitted Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Zaremba: I'll take his word for it. Borup: I think the original intention was that the -- the original site plan was more for a - - somewhat temporary, with a very small office and -- to accommodate them until they were able to do the entire site. It looks like they have -- Zaremba: They haven't changed -- Borup: No, they haven't. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 5 of 90 Zaremba: They haven't changed the purpose of it they are just changing the scope of it. That seems like a major scope change to me. That was my major question. Borup: Well, do you feel there should have been some additional restrictions or additional requirements? Zaremba: I would have thought the neighbors would be interested in having a Public Hearing on that major of a project and to be noted. Centers: That's what I was going to mention, Mr. Chairman. I recall the previous meeting a couple years ago and, if I recall, we didn't really have a turnout of anyone. Borup: The neighbors are all commercial. Centers: Yes because it's commercial, industrial, and -- Zaremba: Then, I don't have a problem with proceeding. Borup: Then, what do you need from us? Do you need a motion, I assume. McKinnon: We do need a motion. You guys are the body tonight making the decision and not recommending this to anyone, so your motion should be to approve or deny. You would be approving the modifications. I would note that there -- that they should have those items that I noted, the 50-foot buffer adjacent to I-84, and recycled asphalt, rolled and oiled, included in your motion as part of the approval. Zaremba: I was assuming that the applicant would say something, too. Is the applicant here? Borup: Yes. I guess we ought to give them that opportunity. Is the applicant here? Is there anything you would like to add? Okay. The applicant -- Zaremba: I would ask a question of the applicant. Borup: Okay. Come on forward, then. Hoffman: David Hoffman with Insight Architects. Zaremba: Thank you. On the new plan, am I interpreting correctly that there is only going to be access to Overland and never an access onto Linder? Hoffman: That's correct. Zaremba: You're happy with that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 6 of 90 Hoffman: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Such a big property with two frontages, I -- Hoffman: I mean we do -- we do want to control the access to the facility. The majority of this facility will be storage of RVs. We do not anticipate -- and one of the reasons we have asked for the -- you know, not asphalt all of the parking lot and go to the reclaimed asphalt was that we do not anticipate, nor does the owner want to allow any traffic driving through the RVs, other than -- Zaremba: Sneaking up behind you, for instance? Hoffman: Yes. There is a lot of money out there, people tend to drive bigger rigs and get stuck in there, and it really becomes, you know, a problem. Viewing of the vehicles is done on foot or through a golf cart or something like that. We are restricting the access of vehicles in there, other than to -- when we sell them and we move the one in. Zaremba: Tell me, if you would -- I see what appears to be six displays or so -- six or eight display parking spaces. Hoffman: Yes. Zaremba: At the current location, there are maybe 50 or 60 -- and I haven't counted them -- vehicles on the lot. Where else are they going to be displayed? Is this what this is back here? Hoffman: May I borrow your pointer? Zaremba: Sure. Hoffman: What we have set up is here is where the parking for the customers and this is the employee parking. This is an area back here that is parking for vehicles in for maintenance, because part of this facility is a maintenance facility here. This is the showroom and office area here. These are display -- six spots for displays, different units, different times of the year they display different types of units there. Then, these are -- these out here are also -- we have kind of lined them out, but there won't be any lines out there, but that kind of gives you an idea of the inventory that will be on the facility and those areas are where they park the various RV recreation vehicles. The access -- the only access would be off of Overland here, that’s the way we want to do it, and we restrict access through a gate here and a gate here, so customers and their rigs stay out here. If we bring any in for service, it comes this way. An access off of Linder is not conducive to the operation. Zaremba: What I was looking for was a tour of the property and you just gave it to me, so -- thank you. That's all of my questions. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 7 of 90 Borup: Did you have any questions on any of the staff recommendations? Hoffman: No. Borup: They stated that you were in agreement with all of them. Hoffman: Yes, we are. We are. Borup: And you are going to be bringing that water line down? Hoffman: Yes. The water line is coming in from -- down the road from Overland. We will have a septic system on site temporarily until such time as the sewer lines has come across the freeway and, then, we will connect to it. Borup: Questions from any of the other Commissioners? All right. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. How long would this permit last before they would have to start construction? McKinnon: Eighteen months. Centers: Eighteen months? Zaremba: From the original approval or from now? Centers: It's been 24. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, based on the extent of the modifications, my recommendation would be that that would be from the date of modification. Centers: So, in other words -- that's my point. By coming with this modification, they are extending their CUP for another 18 months good question, huh? McKinnon: That's a great question. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if I could defer to Jill and get a legal opinion on that. The way the code is written they could ask for an extension. I don't believe that this was a request for an extension. However -- well, that's a great question. Centers: Has the first one lapsed? Borup: Last month would have been the 18 months. Centers: Last month would have been -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 8 of 90 Borup: Well, was that the date of the -- Centers: It's from when the City Council approves it, I would imagine. Borup: Yes. Is my understanding be August 21st . Zaremba: So, they would have to have made it by February of this year. McKinnon: That would have been a month and a half ago. Centers: So August was -- would be the 18 months? Last February was 18 months so, if it's expired, don't they have to reapply and give Mr. Zaremba his Public Hearing? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if you could give me just one second to look at a couple things in the code, I'd appreciate that. Centers: Sure. McKinnon: Hey, Jill, could we borrow you over here for a second? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Centers is absolutely correct on this project. The wording of the Meridian City Code, Title 11, Chapter 17-4B speaks specifically to Conditional Use Permits. The fact that they are valid only for 18 months, unless the project has commenced and it sets forth certain standards for what that equals. The applicant has not met any of those requirements or those that were required for the Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit that was originally approved per Meridian City Code is null and void. Centers: We don't need any action here tonight, do we? Wilhelm: Could I make a comment? Borup: Yes. Just come on up. Then, Dave, don't any extensions need to be applied to the City Council also? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the ordinance goes on a little further under Section D saying that they are allowed to have a one year Time Extension, if the one year Time Extension is requested at least 30 days prior to the expiration date. Borup: I know there has been other extensions granted that were requested after the date, but -- I mean for subdivisions I know that's happened. McKinnon: That's correct. Having written a number of those Variance requests myself, I can verify that, that we have received applications and City Council has approved applications where the time frame expired. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 9 of 90 Borup: Okay. Go ahead. You need to state your name. Wilhelm: My name is Paul Wilhelm, I'm with Primary Construction, and we are the contractors for the project. The only reason that we are where we are is we went and met with the city, I believe -- I think it was Brad, whatever his name was, at the city in either November or December of this year -- or last year. Showed him the old plan, the Conditional Use Permit, showed him the new plan and we were told that everything was fine, go ahead, and so we decided to get the plans developed. We brought it in for a Building Permit February, March, somewhere in there, right around February of this year, and that's when they said we changed our mind, you need to do a change in the Conditional Use Permit, because of the scope of the project. I mean -- and so that's the only reason we are here in April, instead of under construction back in early this year, is because the city wanted us to go and have you look at the project, because it's bigger than it was. This seemed a little absurd to me that now you're -- something like saying, well, now it's null and void, when we were in long -- not long. We were in before the 18 months or whatever -- I'm not aware of any of those dates, I didn't know we had a problem, I didn't come prepared to talk about the specific of dates, but that's why we are where we are or we would have already been under construction. That's all I have, unless you have something that -- Zaremba: You're ready to break ground now? Wilhelm: All the financing is approved and the only reason we got here, when we went in for a Building Permit, they said we better have you guys look at this, rather than just do it. Borup: When was the Building Permit applied for? Wilhelm: I don't know the exact date. Borup: Was that this year or last year? Wilhelm: This year. I know our target date was the third week of February. Not based on knowledge of these dates, but I don't think we made that date, but it was sometime shortly thereafter. Centers: When was the financing arranged? Wilhelm: I was going to sign all of the financing this week, whether we did or not I haven't checked, but it was all approved and ready to be signed this week. Centers: Dave, when a Conditional Use Permit is issued, is that in writing regarding the 18 months expiration date, et cetera, in the City Code? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 10 of 90 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, it's written in City Code and it's very often found in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as a condition of approval. It's not in every one, though. Borup: I did not find it in this one. I glanced over it fairly fast, maybe, but I didn't see it. McKinnon: It's not. I have looked at it, too. Borup: Okay. Wilhelm: Were there any other questions for me? Borup: Thank you. Okay. Zaremba: Are we qualified to extend the CUP time or does that have to go through City Council? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, typically, how we would handle the Time Extension once the time frame has been expired for start of construction has been through a Variance. Your body, Planning and Zoning Commission, does not review Variances and so you would not be the correct body to review that at this time. It's my understanding of the ordinance -- and if we have Legal Counsel here tonight, that may be able to correct me in that. Borup: Let me ask the pragmatic question. What would be worst-case scenario if we went ahead and approved this as applied and as stated in the staff report? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's a hard question for me to answer, because I can't go against our code, because the code is adopted by the City Council. Borup: As enforced by -- Borup: City Council. As authorized -- the different agencies -- different departments to carry that out, so it would probably be through the Code Enforcement Officer if it's something in Planning and Zoning, inspectors of the Public Works, that's -- Zaremba: To keep it from going around in a circle back and forth, would we be able -- maybe this is a question for legal. Would we be able to approve the project, subject to the City Council extending the CUP time, so that it doesn't have to -- they don't have to act first and, then, come back to us again for a second cycle? Borup: Assuming they would even need to approve it. Zaremba: Yes. Assuming they would even need to. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 11 of 90 Borup: I would be in favor of that. It appears that if their Building Permit would have been granted, this would not have been an issue. I think they should also realize that there was a substantial change. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, is it possible that we could construe moving forward with the application for the Building Permit as acting on the Conditional Use Permit and say that they have actually started the project and use the one year from that application of the Building Permit? I'm not suggesting that we do something that would go against city code, but by definition is moving on the Building Permit, is that taking action? Borup: Normally not. I think it would be breaking ground, but they did -- they did do work on the Hardin Drain. I don't know if that would be -- Zaremba: Well, they have done some site preparation. Borup: That's what I mean. Zaremba: Leveling -- Borup: Leveling, moving the drain, and all that stuff is site work. Does it qualify? Normally, it's when you excavate for footings. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the ordinance is very specific in setting forth criteria for which to judge whether start of construction has started. That's listed as they have commenced the use as permitted in accordance with the Conditional Use Permit to satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval and acquire Building Permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. In this context, structure shall include sewer and water lines, streets, or building construction. Rohm: So, there you have it. Borup: So, the question for the Commissioners is how do we push this onto somebody else? Centers: Well, my recommendation would be to just -- no action at all and simply table it and send it back to staff where it started, because if we deny it, we are denying a project that shouldn't have been here to begin with and if we approve if, we are acting against city code. Borup: Have you got something that might shed some light? I would appreciate that. Butler: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, JoAnn Butler, 251 East Front Street. Although I was not requested by Bodily RV to come here tonight, I have represented them -- in fact, reviewed their loan documents. They have been gone through -- the comment that financing has been approved is correct. On this issue, if the entire site was part of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 12 of 90 original approval -- and I would say that the Hardin Drain works that -- Commissioner Borup is correct. That although the code does talk about Building Permits and footings, it says including water lines and sewers. In a situation like this, I think the tile of the drain is an incredible expense that indicates the working of the applicant to perfect the Conditional Use Permit. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Ms. Butler, the Hardin Drain, according to the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in the original Conditional Use Permit on Page 6 states the Hardin Drain shall remain uncovered per NMID's request. It was not part of the original approval. In addition to that, the remainder of the parcel was not to be developed, just the part that you can see on the overhead at this time. Butler: Thank you. I appreciate what staff says, but, obviously, circumstances change, which allowed them to work with Nampa-Meridian and, then, modify the site so that they could come back to the Commission with a modification to the Site Plan for Building Permits. Clearly, that was an attempt to just continue perfecting that site -- the site condition, so that they could come back with that Building Permit and now, obviously, modification. Borup: I think what it does show is they were making good faith efforts on developing this site, but I think the ordinance is fairly clear in what constitutes the start of construction. Rohm: I think that we would be opening ourselves up for problems down the road if we tried to move forward and Commissioner Centers has a good idea, table it, rather than deny it, and we will act on it once everything has been cleared up, as in re-application. Borup: I think, yes, we open ourselves up to problems if someone objects to it. Rohm: Well -- Borup: But there has been -- I mean we have -- there has been other projects approved with time lapsing and so far without any problems. Centers: What does Counsel? Borup: Yes. Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think probably the best thing to do would be to table it, that way we can look at it a little more thoroughly and see if there anything that can be done. Borup: Our next meeting would be May 1st ? McKinnon: That's correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 13 of 90 Zaremba: And what has to happen between now and then? The City Council has to approval an extension of the CUP? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, my understanding is the ordinance -- and I may have to defer to Legal Counsel on this -- would be that once the expiration date is passed, the ordinance states that it would be null and void. The only way that we have resurrected those types have been through a Variance approval through the City Council. We don't have any waiver language in our code right now, so it would have to be -- if we followed the course that I see, it would have to go through City Council before you could make that modification. Like I said, I would defer to Legal Counsel if there is a differing opinion. Centers: So, that might be better, they could go direct to Council and -- for the Variance and not really delay them that much. Good. Zaremba: Well, that's back to my earlier question. Is it totally out of legality for us to approve this subject to the City Council extending it? If City Council doesn't extend the CUP time, then, it's not approved. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you routinely recommend approval on projects subject to approval of a Variance. Very often you recommend approval on subdivisions and block lengths that are above and beyond or too short and you make recommendation to Council based upon the fact that they will apply for and receive the Variance. If the Variance is denied, then, it would come back to you. Zaremba: I mean my opinion is we wouldn't be putting this off to make some change in the project. Are we -- Borup: I agree. Unless -- we didn't have any concern with the project, so there is no reason for us to look at it again. Zaremba: We legally need to dot the I's and cross the T's. I agree with that. Centers: But I think we have our attorney here for a reason, she gave her recommendation, and as -- you know, I'm highly in favor of the project, it's just I think we should do things right. Borup: Well, let's ask -- also, would that proposal be a problem, approve it subject to a Variance granted by City Council? Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I kind of hesitate simply because the application appears to have already expired under the terms of the code. It doesn't make sense to approve something that's already expired. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 14 of 90 Borup: The concern I have is the applicant probably should have -- I mean may not have been specifically required, but staff should have said something to them months ago when they were in redesigning the project. I think the city has some responsibility there. Wilhelm: The 18 months was not included in the Findings of Fact. Borup: Right. We realize that. Yes. We mentioned that earlier. If it's got to go back to City Council, two weeks is not going to be enough time. Centers: Well, we wouldn't have to hear it, according to what I heard from Mr. McKinnon. It would go direct -- if we table it, they go direct to Council for a Variance. Borup: Well, then, after the Variance is granted it comes back to us again. This application would. Zaremba: We have final say in the CUP. They have final say on the extension -- Borup: On the extension. Zaremba: -- of time. My intent would be give our final say now and just leave it hanging on that one subject if there is a legal justification for doing that. Centers: Are you attempting to find something, Mr. McKinnon or -- okay. Borup: If this had been a controversial application, I think we would all feel different, but it's -- you know, it's been their intention for several years to locate there and -- Zaremba: I don't want to interrupt staff while they are looking something up, but maybe we can discuss some other -- what is the difference of starting a new CUP? Does that mean they have to pay fees again and this would have to be sent out to all the departments again if they started from scratch? Borup: That's my understanding. Zaremba: Okay so that's -- Borup: I mean -- Zaremba: Essentially start over. Borup: Which would substantially delay the beginning of construction not to -- I don't want to put any blame on anybody, but I think there is some responsibility of the city here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 15 of 90 Centers: You're probably right, but Mr. Hawkins-Clark is not here to defend himself either. Borup: Well, you know, I don't think it's something they really considered, looking at the dates. I didn't realize it had been that -- I remember the project the first time. I wouldn't have thought it was that long ago. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: If we did it my way, and we approved it, subject to the City Council extending it, the worst that could happen is the City Council could say, no, it was over in February and they start the CUP process again. Borup: Or they could send it back to us, which is the other option we are looking at anyway, so -- Zaremba: Well -- Borup: I would be in favor of your motion. There is no sense jamming up our agenda anymore than we -- Zaremba: And, you know, that applicant has their financing in place and they need to start using it, it's probably costing them money already. Wait for it to get on City Council again and, then, back on our agenda. Borup: There is a minimum of two weeks. Zaremba: Two sets of two weeks, probably. Borup: Well, it depends what City Council does. If they had them go back and do a whole new process, then, we are talking months. Zaremba: I'd just as soon have it not need to come back to us. Borup: Me, too. Rohm: If you want to make that kind of a motion, I would probably second it. Zaremba: Okay. Do we want staff listening? McKinnon: No. Centers: They want to do their thing. Rohm: Let the City Council decide whether or not they can move forward with an expired CUP anyway. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 16 of 90 Zaremba: Unless they are deciding that it's clearly illegal, I'll do that, which I don't think it is, although I'm not a lawyer. Borup: Okay. Commissioners, I don't think -- there is no other solution than what we have already come up with directly and, you know, in opposition to the ordinance. There is a way maybe we could help the time line a little bit. If we continue it, they simultaneously apply for the Variance at City Council, City Council would not have to send it back, we would just need to be notified that the Variance was granted, it would already be on our agenda, we could act on that at the very next meeting after City Council acted. Centers: Well, there is no continuing, because we don't have a Public Hearing. We just table it. Borup: We just table the discussion and -- Centers: On our next available -- Borup: We can continue it again if we needed to, but that would save the most time. Centers: So moved. Borup: At this point I think that's the solution. To May 1st . Zaremba: Second. Borup: Okay. Discussion tabled to May 1st meeting. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we will address this issue with our Legal Counsel -- the other members of the Legal Counsel and see if you can't come up with an opinion, in addition to what Jill's offered tonight. If there is a differing opinion, then, we will bring that back to you. If there is somewhat of a consensus, we will move this forward at our next meeting without going through the Variance process. Borup: And the applicant would be notified on that -- McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: -- soon, I would hope. Sorry. I don't know if that helps a little bit on the time frame. Well, I know it helps a little bit on the time frame, but you may have some -- if you have some other input or ideas, get with staff on that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 17 of 90 Wilhelm: Okay. Item 5. Public Hearing: Amended Zoning Ordinance Meridian City Code 11- 8-1, Schedule of Use Control, to allow churches in R-40, I-L and C-G zones: Borup: Okay. Our next item is Public Hearing on Amended Zoning Ordinance in City Code 11-8-1 in the Schedule of Use Control to allow churches in an R-40, I-L and C-G zones. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Do you have a lengthy report? It looks like, basically, we are adding a Conditional Use -- churches to be allowed as a Conditional Use in those three additional zones. McKinnon: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a really brief staff report. This is in reference to the Religious Land Use Institutionalized Persons Act, which is a federal law that keeps cities and other jurisdictions with zoning laws to unduly prohibit -- or unduly make requirements on religious institutions and the institutionalized persons type of project. You know, the care centers and care homes and rather than keep those from -- as being prohibited uses in several of the zones, the three zones that you previously mentioned, the R-8, the R-40, the -- actually, the R-8, R-40, L-O and C-G zones, we would show that -- excuse me. R-40, I-L and C-G zones, just to make those Conditional Uses, so they would come before the city, instead of just making them outright prohibited and keeping those from going into those zones. I'd ask if you have any questions. It's not much of a staff report, but that's just the real reason for it. It's a pretty simple thing. Borup: Question, comment from the Commissioners? Zaremba: I think my only question would be -- on the narrow subject of churches, I, actually, don't have any problem with them being in every zone that they want to be in. The backwards question is the reason for zoning is to group like things with like things and I would -- in this specific instance I don't have any problem with the R-40 or the industrial zone, but if they are among heavier uses in a C-G zone, where do we stand if sometime later the church complains about their neighbors? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that would be the reason that we would require a Conditional Use Permit in those, to place conditions upon those -- Zaremba: That's why it's not just permitted. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. I'm in favor of it. Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I read all the materials and I think we should move this to the City Council ASAP. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 18 of 90 Borup: Do we have anyone from the public to testify on this? Okay. Then, we are ready for a motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our agenda, Amending Zoning Ordinance of Meridian City Code 11-8-1, Schedule of Use Control, to allow churches in the additional zones of R-40, I-L, and C-G. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 6. Public Hearing: AZ 03-006 Request for annexation and zoning of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8, R-40, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: Item 7. Public Hearing: PP 03-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots and 37 other lots on 392.17 acres in proposed R-8, R-40, L-O and C-G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 03-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 764 single-family residences, 73 townhomes, 270 apartments, community center, schools and churches in proposed R- 8, R-40, L-O and C-G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: Borup: Okay. Unless the next application wants a continuance -- not this month? I guess we have to go ahead, then. We'd like to open -- the next few Public Hearings are all pertaining to the same project, Paramount Subdivision. I'd like to open all three of these at the same time. Public Hearing AZ 03-006, request for annexation and zoning of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8, R-40, L-O, and C-G in the proposed Paramount Subdivision. Also Public Hearing PP 03-004, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots, 37 other lots, on 392 acres in the same proposed zones, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 19 of 90 and, finally, CUP 03-008, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for 764 single family residents with 73 townhomes, 270 apartments, community centers, schools, churches, in the same zone. All three Public Hearings are open. We'd like to start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I would direct your attention to the overhead. This shows a good photograph of the north Meridian area and what we have approved in this area already. The area in bold is the proposed Paramount Subdivision. This is the largest subdivision that you have seen before. It's the largest one that's been proposed in the City of Meridian larger in size, even, than Lochsa, which is just to the west. The property is bounded by Chinden Boulevard on the north, McMillan on the south, Linder on the west, and Meridian on the east. This project will be phasing from west to east. The sewer line will be coming from Lochsa Falls and progressing towards the east. Again, this is basically a Greenfield development. It's a large area that's basically flat in topography. The requested zoning designations are as follows the majority of the central area of the area to be annexed is to be zoned R-8. A 19.2 acre parcel of ground is zoned C-G. Some L-O uses adjacent to Linder Road, with a high school located in the R-8 zone, a church located in the L-O zone, a seminary building located in between the school and the seminary building, with some office and other types of small commercial uses located on Linder. As we come over to the Meridian Road side, we have a commercial center located at the intersection. The apartments, the aforementioned 270 apartment units located around that, with some townhomes or, as the applicant calls them, attached single-family dwellings located in this highlighted portion. More limited office located adjacent to Meridian Road. This is an overview of the project. Just let me say from the outset that we have worked with the applicant and we are in agreement with most things. This is a project that we do support. There is a large amount of -- there has been a great deal of cooperation with the application and many of the different agencies. The applicant has worked very hard with the School District to secure two sites for the high school and for an elementary school site within this project. The applicant has also provided several small -- well, actually, they are not small -- the scale looks small, but they have provided numerous open spaces in addition to the community center as earlier mentioned -- as mentioned earlier. This project has several interesting points -- several interesting design features that I would like to point out to you at this time. You will notice that there are several collectors. They are not truly classified collectors, but they are roads that would connect the entire subdivision and create a sense interconnectivity that run off of Linder, off of Meridian Road, and off of Chinden Boulevard and they all basically come to meet at the center towards the community center. The applicant has provided for the Comprehensive Plan, a pathway that runs throughout the subdivision from the east boundary to the west boundary. Several of the items that we will spend some time talking about tonight -- and I will get into these in more detail when I review the applicant's response letter with you tonight, would be Lot 56, Block 3. We will talk quite a bit about that tonight and whether or not this parcel is actually connected with the rest of the subdivision. The place that it's interconnected right now with the rest of the subdivision is just this small point from here to here to the high school lot. This parcel is an out-parcel, it's not included as a part of the subdivision, so the only interconnectivity Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 20 of 90 is the point that's off the street. There is no arterial connection between these two pieces of property. In addition to the highlighted parcel, we have the neighborhood center. I have placed this on the -- I wasn't able to do an overlay on it, so I went ahead and placed -- and you can see how it runs over parts of this proposed subdivision. The reason why this will be important tonight in our discussions is when we adopted our Comprehensive Plan we showed this as a neighborhood center that had the maximum amount of office and retail as being 100,000 square feet. Within this entire square mile bounded by the four arterials and the state highway, that was to be all of the commercial and office for the entire square mile. The application tonight before you has in excess of half a million square feet, approximately five times the amount that was originally envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan that was recently adopted. The arrows that you see in front of you are in reference to the number of stub streets that we have requested and there is corresponding letters that go with each one of the stub streets that I have. This happens to deal with the Preliminary Plat comments, item number nine in the staff report. The item -- the stub streets that are noticed in red are stub streets that the applicant has agreed to include and the items that are in yellow are stub streets that they are in deference with the city staff. I will come back to this when we go through the applicant's letter to discuss stub streets and the reasons why we requested the stub streets, where we did, and why the applicant is in opposition of those. This photo shows -- this scanned represents the two micropaths that staff has requested. Again, the arrows that are in red represent where the applicant has agreed to include a micropath and the items that are marked in yellow are where the applicant has disagreed with staff's recommendation for micropaths. We will go back to that when we go through the staff report and we go through it with the response from the applicant. There is a number of ordinances that I wanted to bring -- to place before you tonight just for review. One of those would be item -- the top. It states that the exception in planned developments may be approved with different uses and bulk standards than those that are specified through zoning district and compliance with the planned development sections of this title. The application is -- let me give you -- let me explain why this is before you tonight. I wanted to emphasize this. The applicant is required to meet all of the findings for a planned development, for a Conditional Use Permit, and for a Preliminary Plat. They are not excluded from the findings. They are excluded from having to meet all of the different uses and bulk standards, but it does not exempt them from having to meet the findings. This is something that I will bring up at a later time to explain when I go through the applicant's report in response to our staff report. The second portion of the code that I felt was important to discuss tonight has to deal with the 20 percent land use exception. In a Planned Development, you do have an allowance for up to 20 percent of the total area of the project to be devoted to uses that are permitted by exception. This is not an outright grant or approval of 20 percent land use exception, but, rather, a maximum that you may allow and I have underlined and emphasized that the percentage of the use exception allowed is determined by the Commission and Council based upon the size of the project and the intensity of the use exceptions. If you find tonight that the accepted uses are too large, you do have the ability to limit the applicant from the amount of land use exception that they request. There is no cart blanche saying that they have to be allowed to have 20 percent if they request it. It's at your discretion. Before I continue into the response, Bruce Freckleton Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 21 of 90 has asked for just a moment of time to explain one other issue that would be of importance tonight. It has to deal with the sewer improvements and the sewer easement and I will turn the time over to Bruce right now to explain his comments. You should have all received his comments earlier tonight in written form, but he'd like to go into those at this time and, then, I will continue with the staff report. Freckleton: Thank you, Dave. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, in the applicant's reply to our staff report they basically have one issue with our comments from the Public Works Department, specifically, annexation and zoning condition of approval item number four. That comment is also reiterated under site-specific conditions of approval for Preliminary Plat, specifically, I'll read. The applicant shall be required to dedicate a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement through the project to Meridian Road for the North Slough Sewer Trunk after the Preliminary Plat approval by the Meridian City Council and prior to the submittal of the application for the Final Plat for phase one. The applicant's attorney has made a statement that they just don't want to have a condition that isn't possible to perform yet they have not provided evidence for the basis of that comment. Both of the developers involved in this project have complied with similar conditions in the Tuscany Lakes and the Quenzer Commons developments. The applicant will present tonight their argument that the applicant does not yet own all of the ground being proposed for the approval. This is not something new, since very few developers own the land outright that they are developing. In most cases developers obtain the approval -- or, excuse me, obtain options for purchase of the lands with consent of property owners for submission of a development application. In the land purchase option, specific time lines, purchase price, and the terms of the sale are typically defined. To comply with the easement requirement that we have in our staff report, the developer will need to go back to the landowners and obtain the easements. A little bit of a history lesson of why we are where we are. The City of Meridian invested approximately four years on the White Drain Trunk, which, just to bring that back to your memory, was the three-mile trunk line that the city built through the sections here. Much of the time was spent on easement acquisition. Without easements clear through the service area, the White Drain Trunk could not have been built to provide service to the following developments Watersong Estates, Linder Road Middle School, Baldwin Park Subdivision, Cobblefield Subdivision, Cedar Springs Subdivision, Cedar Springs North Subdivision, Sundance Subdivision, Sundance Place Subdivision, Burney Glen Subdivision, Havasu Creek Subdivision, and Quenzer Commons Subdivision. School Campus Subdivision, which is the site of a new elementary school and the existing charter high school. The extensive four-year time frame is exactly why we have placed a condition that we have on this project, is we are trying to avoid that time line. I think it's important to point out that had the developers of the Lochsa Falls project, which is to the west of the proposed Paramount project chose to begin its project on the Ten Mile Road frontage, instead of on the Linder Road frontage. We didn't make the same condition that we are applying on this project for easements clear through the section, this project would not be serviceable and this developer would be at the mercy of his development -- of the developer of Lochsa's time frame. I'm not sure exactly why the developer of the Lochsa project agreed or chose to build a mile of off-site sewer up here, but perhaps the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 22 of 90 developer could explain if any agreements have been made between the developer of Lochsa and them regarding bringing sewer clear through the section to make it available for Paramount. The applicant may also make an argument tonight that the property owners that have given them the options do not want the sanitary sewer trunk line built across their property until such time as the property is developed. More than likely, the concern is that they would like to continue to farm the land up until the time the development takes place on their land and if the sewer were built ahead of the development, their ability to farm their land would be hampered. These concerns can be addressed in the language for the easements, easements -- or language regarding irrigation drainage and those sorts of things. It is our belief that properties upstream of the Paramount project, all of these properties up here, will develop as rapidly as the properties within the White Drain service area, all those subdivisions and projects that I listed off for you. The -- kind of the basis for our position in the Public Works Department is that by not insuring the easements are completely dedicated through our projects, we are granting the developer control over the progressive time line for the city sanitary sewer system. In other words, properties upstream from the Paramount project would be at the mercy of the developer's time line and will have to wait for the sewer to be built through the project to the point where they can gain access. The Vienna Woods project that's right here is currently served by a lift station that's the second bullet point for our basis, is that we would also be closer to being able to decommission the Vienna Woods lift station, take it off line, and connect it up to the proper sewer. The negative down sides of not having an easement, one, upstream properties and the city would have to wait on the developer's schedule for sewer to get to them. Two, upstream property owners or developers will approach the city with proposals to install sanitary sewer lift stations to provide temporary service into adjacent drainage areas until such time that they can connect to the proper sewer system. This creates a host of problems, including taking up capacity that is intended for other properties within the proper drainage area, extensive evaluation of lift station proposals. This is -- time is the element here that it takes up a lot of staff time. Setting upstream sewer design inverts, so that we have to connect the dots later and maintenance. Also, it gives unfair marketing advantage to the developer, since he would be in control of the development time line in the progression of the sanitary sewer trunk. The positive upsides of having an easement granted at this time are upstream properties are not locked out of sewer service. By have easements in place, upstream properties have the option of constructing the sewer system to their properties. The city does not have to contend with more sanitary sewer lift stations to provide temporary service into adjacent drainage areas and by not having temporary lift stations the full design capacity of the sanitary sewer trunk line is available to the proper drainage area and the element of unfair market advantage is eliminated. With that, I will turn the time back over to Dave. Zaremba: Can I pursue something while we are on this subject? Freckleton: Sure. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 23 of 90 Zaremba: I'm troubled by your statement that this is under several different ownerships. In our packet, we have, signed by the applicant, an application for annexation and zoning or rezone, and also an application of request subdivision approval of Preliminary Plat. On both of those, the applicant has stated that Paramount, LLC, is the owner of record of all this property. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba that -- that's a question that I think probably should be directed to the applicant. Zaremba: Well, the reason for asking that is to make sure that we have the owner's approval to pursue exactly the kinds of agreements that we need to pursue here. Freckleton: I believe also in your application packet you will find consent of property owners that were submitted along with the application. Zaremba: Yes. Freckleton: Yes. There are several of them in there. Zaremba: They consented to have these amendments made, easements, and -- Freckleton: They have consented to the applicant that he can submit the applications for the project. It's not a consent for granting easements. It's simply a consent to file an application on their property. Zaremba: Which may come back with a requirement for easements. Okay. Freckleton: There is a summary sheet as part of the application that shows that there are 16 individual properties, of which nine of those are under the Paramount, LLC, and ownership. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Go ahead, Dave. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a little bit of housekeeping and we can jump right into the nitty-gritty. If I could have you turn to Page 22 of your staff report and add one additional item, which would be Item Number 8. Centers: Page what? McKinnon: Page 22. I need to add another condition of approval for the Conditional Use Permit. That would be that this Conditional Use Permit would become null and void after 18 months per city code. Thank you, Bruce. Once you have made the correction, if I could direct your attention to go ahead and grab a hold of the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 24 of 90 Zaremba: David, on that one, rather than saying after 18 months, we should say 18 months after, what, approval by the City Council? McKinnon: That's correct. Just per Meridian City Code. Centers: Or in the Findings of Fact. McKinnon: You can throw that in absolutely if you have got that correction made. If I could direct your attention to the letter written by Mike Wardle through the Planning and Zoning Commission, dated April 14, 2003 this is the point where we get to discuss where we differ. Like I said earlier in the staff report, the applicant and staff are really close together. There are just a few things that we are far apart on. We will go ahead and go through those. Skip on back to this first section. At the bottom of page, one is our first disagreement. They disagree with the staff analysis that Lot 57, Block 3 -- that's the green southwest corner, corner of McMillan and Linder. The applicant disagrees with staff that that is not part of the subdivision and it's not interconnected with the rest of the subdivision. The applicant believes that this commercial piece of property, which I will point out on the Comprehensive Plan, is shown as residential, not commercial, that that is well integrated with the rest of the subdivision. Again, staff would point out that the only location that this property is integrated with the rest of the subdivision is to the high school. Typically, the high school would have a fence between commercial property and the high school property to keep students from going from -- directly from campus to those types of properties. I have not checked with the Meridian School District, but that's typically how it works. That's the only interconnectivity for students to be able to walk through this site, for any pedestrian access to Lot 57. They would have to cross in front of the undeveloped parcel -- the out-parcel that's immediately adjacent to Linder Road, because there is no direct walking path to this portion of the subdivision and from the west -- going east to west, there is no connection. In fact, there is several acres -- almost 100 acres that separate -- actually, the closest point would be right there, but there is no way for those people to get to this. The only way that this property is accessible is by car on two major arterials and this is intended to be a commercial area. The applicant has stated in their letter that if you look at the narrow vision, that's correct, but they wanted to point out that the high school location is located just to the north of it. They worked with the high school to place it in this location. Had the high school not been placed here and residential had been placed in this location, there would have been a possibility for pedestrian connection or for interconnectivity for vehicular connection, but only through this small portion of land for the interconnectivity. Staff does agree this is a great location for a high school. We don't argue that, but we think this portion of the property should not be included with this application, because this is not truly part of the rest of the project. This is a separate commercial project that has no relationship to the rest of the residential -- the majority of the residential portion of this development. That's where we disagree pretty heavily and it has a lot to do with Lot 57, Block 3. If you will turn to Page 2 the applicant has requested an action that we change the wording of our application -- I mean of our staff report to read as follows -- it's the underlined section included in the requested action, to add the language. However the development of Lot 57, Block 3, includes cross- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 25 of 90 access to both pedestrian and roadways to the excluded properties to the east, this parcel can comply with the required findings for accepted uses, which are on Pages 17 and 19 and the rest of the staff report. If you were to turn to those pages, you would see that they are required, as part of the Planned Development, to have all parts of the Planned Development, especially the excepted uses, of which is this, to provide interconnectivity with the rest of the subdivision. This is, obviously, an attempt to add additional commercial property to this subdivision without having to provide the extra interconnectivity. Should the application provide stub streets, pedestrian pathways to the future, that’s a great thing to do, and we would recommend that they do that, regardless of whether or not you were to approve this as an accepted use tonight. If this were a residential use, we would make the same recommendation, but because this is an excepted use and excepted uses are held to separate findings that are noted on Page 17 through 19, this does not meet those findings and should not be included with this. That's why we have asked you to except -- to exclude this from the rest of the application. If I can have you turn to Page 3. The applicant has requested clarification for Item Number 4 on Page 8 of our staff report. That was the information that Bruce provided to you with earlier concerning the easements for the sewer line and for the construction of a sewer line through this project. Item Number 5 the applicant disagrees. Again, we are dealing with Lot 57, Block 3, and they have asked that you delete this from the staff report and staff is still -- still believes that the staff report is correct, this is not interrelated as an excepted use with the rest of the project. If we go to the Preliminary Plat, the findings and requirements the Preliminary Plat Objectives 8 through 9, clarification, under E. The applicant has been required by ITD and ACHD -- if you can go up to the overhead -- to align this roadway with North Fox Run, which is on the north side of Chinden Boulevard. The applicant has had conversations and a verbal agreement with the church who owns the property to the west to allow the modification of the roadway. I, too, have had conversations with members of the church and I will agree that they have had discussions and that they were in agreement with that. We have no problem with that. If we can go down to the additional considerations, pages nine and ten, interconnectivity, clarification the applicant has gone through a large scale project and has taken great lengths to create interconnectivity. As you can see from looking at the Site Plan, there is not a preponderance of cul-de-sacs within this subdivision. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find one cul-de-sac. This subdivision is very well interconnected, but there are several areas that they disagree with us on interconnectivity. We are going to jump to those in just one second. If I could get you to move to the next page on Page 4. Again, the clarification that they are requesting is the same language. Item Number 1 on Page 4. It's the same clarification that Bruce tried to provide to you earlier. Item Number 4 on Page 4, the modification, and the request to allow a 15-foot landscape buffer. Staff is okay with that. We would recommend approval of that. We are in agreement with the applicant with their proposed language. This is a Planned Development and they have the right to request that. The 15-foot reduction is something that can be allowed through the Planned Development Ordinance and we believe that that is something that would be appropriate at this time. Item Number 5. The applicant disagrees with the statement that they should revise the Preliminary Plat to show how all existing irrigation and drainage ditches are to be treated. They have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 26 of 90 asked for that to be removed. The reason that this has been incorporated as part of the staff report is from time to time when an irrigation ditch is tiled or relocated, if they don't show it on the plat map, it comes back to bite us later, because they have relocated that irrigation ditch into what is now shown as a landscape buffer. Typically, there are easements over those landscape buffers to prohibit the landscaping from being included. Bruce points out it's also a required element of the Preliminary Plat. We would request that that language remain there, that they should show how they are dealing with all the existing irrigation ditches, rather than allow them to tile them at their will, according to the Meridian City Code. Otherwise, we may have changes in the future that you do not have a change to respond to, to tonight, if those laterals and irrigation ditches are relocated elsewhere. Item Number 6. The applicant has requested clarification that Ustick should be changed to McMillan. Staff agrees with that change. It should be changed to McMillan. If we can move to the overhead now, if we can move down to items number 9-A, 9-B, 9-C, and 9-D. We will go to the next page after that. These are in reference to the stub streets that are on the overhead that's in front of you tonight. If I could direct your attention to stub street A on the overhead. The applicant has stated they are in agreement with placing a stub street in this location that would run east to west. Furthermore, the applicant -- if we can go to B. The applicant has agreed to place a stub street up towards the north within this block. If we can move to Item Number C the applicant has requested that they not be required to include a stub street at this location and I will explain why the Planning and Zoning staff has requested a stub street at this location. This block that we have right now is well over 1,000 feet, so we have requested a stub street at this location and the applicant has agreed to provide the access to this lot. Should they not have to place another stub street within this block, again, the block length would be well over 1,000 feet. A typical walkable block, if you want to promote walking, is less than 1,000 feet in length. Staff is requesting an additional stub street be located in this location, so there would be additional support for walking and pedestrian traffic and bike traffic at this location, plus to keep the block length shorter in accordance with the Meridian City Code that requires block lengths to be no greater than 1,000 feet. I would point out -- Borup: And maybe while you're on that, I don't know if we are all going to remember questions, but could you explain that more on the walking? I understand the ordinance and the 1,000-foot, but I do not understand how a stub street is going to be more conducive to walking. McKinnon: Future interconnectivity -- there has been a number of studies that have been done -- Borup: You're saying to get to the future development. McKinnon: That's correct. It would be for future development. There have just been a number of studies that have been done that have said that if people have to walk more than a quarter mile to get from one location to another, they typically won't walk. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 27 of 90 Borup: So, you're assuming that would be for -- the type of development there doesn't matter? McKinnon: Typically, it's from residential to commercial, but from residential to residential I'm sure it would be similar responses that happen. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: That's Item Number C. Item Number D -- again, I'll highlight that. There was a stub street at this location on the south side to provide access to the excluded out-parcel that's included within the neighborhood center. You can see how the neighborhood center overlays this. In our Comprehensive Plan, there was a request -- not a request, but there was a goal that was stated that said in the neighborhood centers block lengths should be a maximum of 300 feet in length. If we provide a stub street in this location, in addition to stub street A, that would keep that block length under 300 -- it would keep that block length within the 300 foot range, in addition to the other stub street that has been provided by the applicant. The applicant has disagreed with this request. If I could direct your attention to stub street E this is going to be on page five now. I direct your attention to the applicant's requested action to modify the site-specific condition. The applicant has agreed that a stub street to this narrow piece of property heading ease and west would be appropriate. They have requested that if this is approved, the stub street that's now located north and south be eliminated and I'll let the applicant explain why they'd like for that to be eliminated. Staff supports this stub street that's north south, because, again, if this stub street were eliminated, it would create a block that would be in excess of 1,000 feet. For any return from this subdivision to come in and go north, it would create a block length that's well in excess of 1,000 feet from this street located here to some section area of this future subdivision or development. Item F. The applicant has requested that they not be required to provide access to this parcel at this location. I know the applicant has some drawings that would better demonstrate this than what we have on PowerPoint tonight, that is more focused in on this. The applicant does not want to -- does not want to be required to have an access to this location, because there is a landscape buffer that's located on the north side of this project. The owners of this property have access from this stub street, which the applicant has agreed to, and it has direct street access out to Meridian Road. The reason why staff has requested one here is because the applicant has provided access -- and there is two islands in this road. They have provided access between the two islands to access this parcel that's highlighted right now to the south, has not provided access to the parcel to the north and we felt it would be appropriate to have curb returns lined with each other and that's the reason why we have requested an access at that location. Items Number G and H, the applicant is in agreement with. That's the cross-access right here. The cross-access of the stub street aligning with the two parcels. That's also in accordance with the request from Ada County Highway District. Item Number 10. The application has requested -- move to the ped paths. The applicant has agreed to install a ped path through this block located right here and to provide better access for the people that live within this portion of the subdivision, to have access to the community center. They can walk, instead of having to go out and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 28 of 90 around this large block, they have provided an access through the middle. The applicant has requested, however, that you strike the first bullet point on Item Number 10, which was a request for a pedestrian pathway to come through this block, as noted by the yellow arrow. This has been an item of discussion that we have had with the applicant numerous times and staff has -- we are not solidly behind that. The amount of distance that would be saved by walking -- by providing a pedestrian pathway at this location is not a great deal, considering the number of houses that are located in this area and the number of houses located here. All of these houses would have to walk the same distance to go down to the pathway and over to the community center as if they would to walk straight up and, then, drop right down on the road and just following the existing sidewalks. If you feel that that's an important area for a pedestrian pathway, we'd ask that you keep that. There -- we have had numerous discussions with the applicant and it does seem that that would not be necessary, but it would be something that would be nice to provide for a subdivision and those people that live to the west of that pathway. Item Number 11 the two clarifications and the requested actions. Staff is in agreement with the requested actions and the requested clarifications, that they be allowed to have a four-foot high fence, plus two feet of latticework to be placed on top. Staff is in agreement with that and asks that you go ahead and make those changes. Again, if you turn to Page 6, you will see that the applicant is in agreement with the majority of the comments. On to the Conditional Use Permit again, we are going to spend a little bit of time discussing Lot 57, Block 3. There are a number of findings that the applicant has to go through in order to make the land use exceptions available as part of the Planned Development. I'll just run through a couple of those. Actually, I'll run through all of them just very quickly. The uses permitted by the exception are strongly related to the principal use. Staff disagrees that Lot 57, Block 3, is strongly related to the rest of this project. Finding Number 2 is that no more than 20 percent of the total area of the project is devoted to the uses permitted by the exception and the percentage of the use exception allowed is determined by the Council and Commission. You have the ability to say that they can or cannot have that percentage as an excepted land use. Finding Number 3 states the development must be based and the construction with excepted use or uses will be justified for construction. The applicant will provide you tonight with a Phasing Plan, so you will be able to make this finding. Item 4 the uses permitted by any exception are integrated into the overall project. Item A being located in proximity to and within convenient walking distance of the primary uses. Again, staff will point out that this is separated from the rest of the project. The majority of this project is residential. There is no convenient walking distance to Lot 57, Block 3. Centers: Excuse me, Dave. McKinnon: Yes. Centers: While you're on that, with that lot, however, what's their percentage of excepted use? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 29 of 90 McKinnon: With that lot it's approximately -- it's 19.2 acres. I did the math. It's in the report. I believe it's approximately 210,000 square feet of office and retail, which would be about eight -- seven or eight percent. Centers: Okay. McKinnon: Of the overall project. I -- well, I can do the math real quick. 392 divided by the -- Centers: It's below the 20. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Yes. Well below. Borup: Well below. Centers: Okay. Thanks. McKinnon: Item Number B is that they are utilizing one more of the main vehicular accesses to the primary site. Lot 57, Block 3, does not provide or use any vehicular accesses that are used for the rest of the project. Item C. Providing pedestrian or bicycle pathway connections to the primary use site. The submitted application did not include any pathway or bicycle sites -- or provide for any bicycle or pedestrian pathways to Lot 57, Block 3. The orientation of the buildings on excepted site is facilitating vehicular and pedestrian traffic from the primary use site. It facilitates, again, vehicular, but not pedestrian traffic. Item E is continual landscaping architecture, building bulk concepts primary to the use exception are consistent and harmonious. The applicant did not provide any information regarding this finding. It was not required based on the conceptual nature of this project. Item Number 5 is that the uses permitted by the exceptions are neighborhood or community serving in size, character, and not regional. This speaks directly to the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that a neighborhood community center is scheduled for this one square mile area. The community center allowed for up to 100,000 square feet. The proposed development, again, is 500,000 plus square feet of office and retail mixed uses, uses that would be excepted from the use. Is it neighborhood scale, neighborhood as set forth by our Comprehensive Plan was 100,000 community 200,000, 500,000 exceeds both. If we reduce the excepted uses down on Lot 57, Block 3, we believe that that would reduce it by approximately 200,000, bringing it down to the 300,000 range, which, although is much higher than was expected by the Comprehensive Plan, it still falls in, as correctly pointed out by Commissioner Centers. The staff report, falls well within the 20 percent land use exception. If I can get you to turn to Page 7, the applicant is asking for clarification under C. Staff has stated that the commercial properties is far greater than anticipated, it is not harmonious with the intended residential character of the general vicinity and the applicant goes on to -- goes forward to define what commercial is, defined as by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff would point out, again, that this piece of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 30 of 90 property, Lot 57, Block 3, is not shown as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan, but, rather, residential. The fact that they have shown a definition for commercial should not be applied to the property, because the Comprehensive Plan shows that it's residential, not commercial. The requested action for C, to delete the last sentence of Conditional Use standard C, pages 16 and 17, they would like the following sentence stricken. The amount of commercial property proposed by the applicant is far greater than anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and is not harmonious with the intended residential character of the general vicinity. I will leave that up to you to determine tonight, as you are the ones making the findings for this. I have gone through a number of the items on Page 6 -- on 7 and 8, going through all of the findings and telling you how we disagree with the applicant with those findings. We disagree with the applicant's request that we change those findings to include the statements that at this time Lot 57, Block 3, is not - - at this time it is not -- that has it worded -- is not accessible at this time. It goes on: However, in the future when the adjoining parcels develop and cross-access is granted interconnectivity through shared access vehicle points will occur. This is a Planned Development, not a future Planned Development. We would point out to you that this should be connected with the Planned Development itself, not with future properties. Finally, go down to five on Page 9, clarification. They've asked that you strike the following statement staff finds that the proposed office and retail uses, when combined, equal over half a million square feet of possible office retail space. Staff does not believe that the scale of the office and retail use is appropriate to the size of the overall development. As stated before, the Comprehensive Plan depicts a 100,000 square foot maximum for commercial square footage within this entire square mile and staff further finds -- it rather should just say staff finds. I would point out that those are all items that have been presented by the applicant. They have asked for over 500,000 square feet of office retail. The 100,000 square foot is factual, it is in the Comprehensive Plan, and those items should not be stricken. Additional consideration Page 20 again, the applicant and staff are in agreement. This is a large project and they are allowed to request the excepted uses. It's up to you tonight to determine what amount of those excepted uses you would like to see. We do agree with the applicant. This is a very large project and because of the scale of this project, they are able to ask for a lot more than a smaller project would have. In addition to that, the applicant is able to provide a number of amenities that would not be able to be provided if this was a patchwork subdivision. Down to Page 10, J, clarification the applicant has requested that we modify Conditional Use Specific Condition Number 4-J on Page 21 to read as shown on Page 10. The applicant is in agreement with that. We have no objection. The final portion of Mr. Wardle's letter is a recommendation where he wants to address the recommendation. He would like point out there is basically two things interconnectivity and the exclusion of Lot 57, Block 3, and those are the two major issues. I have hammered enough on that tonight and I'm sure Mike will be able to discuss more of that with you. However, he points out in the recommendation that we have asked for this to be continued, so that you have the opportunity to review any of the changes that you make tonight before you send it on to City Council. We have received request from the Council that you pass on a complete project and something that you're comfortable with and that you have reviewed. If you are comfortable with the changes that you make tonight and you view them as minor and the applicant can provide those changes and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 31 of 90 you're comfortable with them making those changes, staff does not have an objection to moving this forward tonight. As long as you're comfortable with the final product and you don't believe that any of the changes you request tonight are major in scope. As far as the requested action by the applicant, we agree with the applicant, we think this is a good project, we think that it should be approved, we believe that this is going to be a benefit for the City of Meridian. This is a large project that provides many amenities that could not be provided if it was done patchwork and I would ask if you have any questions of staff at this time. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I have one, which was answered by the drawing that you showed. My question was where are the zones and, then, they are not indicated on the plat and I'd appreciate having that, but shouldn't they actually be on the plat? There is no way by looking at the plat to know which zones are which. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, they are not required to be placed on the plat. From time to time zoning can change when the plat itself would not change. Zoning information is not static, it's dynamic and continues to change. Borup: Except that the zoning is accompanied with a legal description. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might just add to that. The annexation and zoning application, they do have to submit individual legal descriptions for the separate zones. When the ordinance is prepared, a map will be generated at that point in time that depicts the different zones for the entire project. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Does the applicant have anything to add or did staff do a good job? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mike Wardle, 4940 East Millstation Drive in Boise. I strongly object to staff's presentation, because they have taken most of my several days of preparation time away. I'm not going to repeat all that staff has covered, but I -- frankly, they have done a great job on this project and the analysis. Each of you received a packet. Some of the information here we probably won't get into in depth this evening, but we have all of our slides that we have on our PowerPoint presentation and some of those slides are key to color exhibits that are also provided, the first being a reduction of the overall master plan. The second colored is a phasing map. The third and fourth Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 32 of 90 deal with the issues of the stub streets, and the fifth is zoning, shown on the color schematic. We will make some reference to that yet this evening, but Dave's done a good job of going through the technical details. Let me -- I want to spend just a moment to talk about the broad perspective. This project is paramount by its very definition. It's a unique project -- and let's go to the Master Plan, please. Next slide. It's a unique project in the sense that it does have mixed-use elements proposed in it, even though they are, by current definition of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance, by specific zone. It does comport closely to many of the concepts that we have put forth in the North Meridian Plan and, as staff has pointed out, it is totally connected. There are no cul-de-sacs or dead ends in this particular project. Even though there is a large school site on the west edge, the real heart of this project is an elementary school that has virtual access from every point and direction. This is not one of those schools in the future that will be found only at the end of a cul-de-sac with one access and very limited visibility, this will have total visibility on two full street frontages, both of which of really have good access from everywhere else in the neighborhood. It's probably one of the schools that will be walked to and, in that regard, in contrast to other types of development proposals, it will not be necessary for folks to go anywhere in this project, with all due respect to staff, with -- to any part of the proposal -- obviously, we will be talking about this for a moment. Virtually all the uses -- the services, the higher density uses, the commercial, multi-family townhomes, church site, all of this is accessible from the internal circulation system. We also worked very hard to spread the traffic flow, so that there is no traffic builds up in the heart of this community. The collector roadway elements really pick up the traffic when these varied streets finally get close to the point of intersection with the exterior arterial. Certainly, there is a roadway unit that comes through here that makes a good connection, but, again, the projected traffic flows really work very, very well from an internal perspective and do not separate the neighborhood by high speed, backed up type of development. We are quite pleased with the character and the concept that has come forward. It does integrate many diverse elements and does meet the frisbee test in the sense that there are places within the very small subsets of this project for children to go without having to go great distances to a single point where the parents lose a lot of contact with those children. A lot of key elements that have been built into this that really will make this a cutting edge type of neighborhood in the future. As I said earlier, by very definition it will be Paramount. I would point out to you that the Ada County Highway District has reviewed and approved. This does meet their requirement and the Idaho Transportation Department requirements with the alignment that we have talked -- that staff has talked about at Chinden Boulevard. So -- one other interesting point staff talks a lot about the Comprehensive Plan and the 100,000 square feet. I would point out to you that the anxiety that was created when these projects first started to come in and staff had a -- I think the first slide up that showed all of the major projects, the Bridgetower’s, the Lochsa Falls, and this originally as Keltic Heights. As these projects came in, they provoked the traffic studies that provoked the North Meridian Plan. It's interesting to note that in the traffic study that provoked that interest that the study was based -- and I have no clue where they got this direction. The basis for each and every section in the traffic study that was performed for ACHD by Washington Group projected 392,000 square feet of commercial and office space per section in that entire area talking about Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 33 of 90 substantial amounts of anticipated services. Whether it's germane or not, it's simply an interesting point that that issue has been raised and has been studied. I won't go through the detail that staff has, but let me just -- I want to go on to a couple of the slides just to -- let's go to the next slide, I believe. No. Go two more, please. That's the phasing for this particular one. It's the same as is on the easel here. Staff did a good job of identifying these, but this is a little bit clearer and this would be in your packet as Item Number 4 in the color-coded submittals. Centers: Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Yes. Centers: On this that I have been reviewing, the green arrows -- you're going to cover those? Wardle: Yes. Mr. Chairman, the green arrows are the existing point of stubs that we have already provided. Every -- all of these points show the existing stubs that were proposed and several of these actually came as a result of the discussion that we had with staff to provide additional connections into adjacent parcels. We felt comfortable doing that and we were somewhat surprised by the number of additional access points that were projected -- or requested by staff. Centers: So, you had four originally and staff came up with seven -- eight more? Wardle: Correct. Centers: Okay. Could you direct me to the Packard and Mastropaolo properties? Packard is 4.9 acres and Mastropaolo is five. Wardle: Mr. Turnbull says that it's up -- I need to get to the one that I can read from this point. Mr. Turnbull points out that those are these two parcels right here. I would point out that as staff did -- this stub, 9-G -- Centers: Well, let me interrupt, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Okay. Centers: The ACHD also recommends both of those. Page 11. Excuse me. Page 12. Conditional connectivity. To limit access to Meridian Road, provide inter-neighborhood connectivity, the applicant should provide access to the Packard 4.9 acres and the Mastropaolo five-acre properties. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, we agree and that's why by providing this access it provides access to both -- Centers: So one provides access to both? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 34 of 90 Wardle: Yes, it does. It splits it right down the middle. It does, in fact, provide that. These are not big killer issues, but, clearly, each time you had -- there we go. That shows how that does align. Each time you had one of these, particularly -- if you could go back a slide or two and let me just illustrate. Centers: Well, that one is a curb cut, really. Wardle: Yes. Centers: Yes. That's all they are wanting is a curb cut to align it with the curb cut across the street. Wardle: And that's not to say that something like that might be worked out in the future as we get down to site-specific planning, but the reality is that 9-G does, in fact, provide access to both of those parcels. Centers: Good. Borup: That's the way I read ACHD. They just -- they wanted access to both parcels. How it was accomplished would be up to the developer. Wardle: And we believe that that's accomplished. Let me just point out that every time you add a stub of this nature -- and particularly in a location where you may, in fact, end up losing a lot, you lose a lot. You lose value, but you also expend roughly a 60 to 70,000 dollar bill by the time you put all the utilities and so forth into it. We are not at all opposed to making the project good and accessible. In fact, that's what happens when you look at this one, all of these parcels are well accessed and so we would, again, ask for your due consideration for those that we suggest be deleted and, specifically, let me just start -- we agree with 9-A, which is here. We do not agree with 9-B in this area. We do agree with 9-H. That's fine. Yes. We agree with 9-H. We already have this stub. We have that stub. We agree with this one that does provide access to both of those. Now, one consideration -- staff talked about the length of block. You do have, under the Planned Development procedure the block length is really not the same issue as it is in just a standard subdivision. However, we agree with this one, but one thing that could happen to improve this scenario is to find a middle ground, instead of necessarily putting that one right there, maybe it comes down here and breaks up this, so that the block lengths are not as long or extreme. There is a way to do this that addresses some of staff's concerns, but also provides the access from the east into these parcels just we have here. The problem we have with this one is now we have an extremely large lot that has a street on both sides of it and this lot is much larger than anything else, because it can't -- you can't get to it. Just the very depth of those lots, roughly 100 to 110 feet deep each direction, means we have one really, really large lot that might be somewhat isolated if this particular -- if this came in as a commercial development in the future, it's a little bit out of character with the rest of the project. With regard to the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 35 of 90 Borup: Maybe while you're on that, I guess -- I think there is good argument for everything you're saying, except for that last one. Wardle: This one? Borup: Well, what would be -- if we had to choose one or the other, then, you're saying there would be no access to one parcel or the other; is that what you're proposing? Wardle: Well, up -- Borup: Other than to a future undeveloped parcel. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, this is one ownership up here. Borup: But it's two parcels. Wardle: Yes. It just happens to be that's the quarter mile section right there. This is one ownership. There is access -- there is access and, obviously, if this parcel develops, there is going to be some requirement for access here as well. ACHD will see to it and I'm sure that you folks will. We are simply saying that we have no problem doing this, if that's -- if the Commission determines that's the appropriate one, but if you do, we ask for this one to be deleted. It's a choice that the Commission gets to address. The two-micropath locations, we agree with this one, it does get people down to this regional trail system that is being provided. The other staff had indicated that, you know, it might help get people to the community center a little faster. Well, in reality, if they come across this block, they have either got to go this way or they have got to come down this way. We are not certain that that gains as much. We do have access points into the school site from both streets for pedestrian purposes. I suppose one other alternative would be to move those down, so that they could tie in right through here and people could traverse any direction that they chose to do. But -- so, what we have provided to you in the site-specific comments are requests for either the choice of this one in lieu of North Ellis, deletion of this, deletion of that, deletion of this, but we are willing to provide all of the others. Question that particular segment and staff noted it. They had not very great strong feelings about that one as well. Let me just make a brief point about, first of all, the annexation. That would go back to our -- my Page Number 3 and these are the annexation and zoning conditions of approval. Item Number 4, as staff has amply discussed, deals with the sewer easement and we are requesting -- or I simply said we are continuing to work with staff and provide language -- we are requesting to deletion of Number 4. It's possible that Mr. Turnbull or Ms. Butler, Legal Counsel, might address that somewhat further. Of course, we are disagreeing with -- and asking deletion of Number 5 that relates to block -- of Lot 57, Block 3. We have to note that in the Conditional Use Permit, all of the nonresidential components that are shown on this plat, the commercial, the multi-family, the other pieces, including this, all do have to come back in the future for specific Conditional Use approvals. I would expect that by the time this one comes, which would some distance down the line, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 36 of 90 frankly, that there would be probably consideration of how that would relate to the extended community will be developing within that section in the future or certainly those areas will be coming forward, so -- Borup: Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Yes. Borup: Could that parcel be developed at the same time, then? Wardle: This? Borup: Well, no. Lot 57. At the same time that this other -- this other area developed. Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, our Phasing Plan starts up here and it will be moving forward. That particular piece of the project will be at some undetermined point in the future, clearly not early in the project. Borup: Well, that's what I kind of assumed. I guess in defense of staff's position, what different does it make if that's approved part of this project or not? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, we don't want you or -- and I don't want to agonize all night over this either. That would be a choice that you certainly must make and if you, in your wisdom, determined that that needs to come forward at some time with other property, we are certainly not going to fall on the sword, as it were, over it so, good point won't dispute it. By simply -- we have in the context of our analysis have given you what we believe are legitimate and well-founded reasons for the inclusion, the fact that it is in the future to be required specifically through a Conditional Use Permit. Going on my Page 4, which, again, are the site-specific conditions, the first one of those, of course, dealing with the sewer easement. We would ask the Commission to delete the second paragraph in the original staff recommendation that deals with the requirement that that be provided initially in the first phase to Meridian Road and, then, I think staff has done a good job of addressing most of the remainder of these, they agree with the 15-foot landscape buffer. It may be in Number 5 that talks about the irrigation, but our engineer Mr. Smith that's here this evening might want to address that, but, quite frankly, we do comply with not only city code, we comply with state law and we have to comply with irrigation district requirements for all of the irrigation and drainage facilities. That particular condition is putting perhaps some hypotheticals on that may or may not be the issues that are addressed as we get down to those points with the irrigation district, which is the one that must make the final decisions. We are simply saying that we -- we are not certain what value that really provides to revise the Preliminary Plat to show how all of those existing facilities are treated and, in fact, we are not aware that that's been a condition of approval in the past. Then, very clearly, we have -- I won't go through the rest of them, because they are identified clearly which stubs we agree and disagree with and the remainder of those conditions as proposed, we would ask for your consideration. Then, finally, let's just turn to the -- it would be page ten that deals Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 37 of 90 with the Conditional Use Permit site-specific comments. Again, staff has agreed with our proposed modification for the timing on 4-J, so, essentially, one through seven we really have no -- no particular issue with. I think when you -- yes. We did bring in the earlier discussion, one of the conditions for this -- the CU was now -- it has been made consistent with an earlier condition that -- so, I think in all of those, really, we are in agreement. Now, let me just summarize the last page. There are conditions of approval and findings for all of the matters that relate to the items that staff has suggested needed to be continued first and foremost, the collector roadway alignment to the north. There was a condition that deals with that. We have communicated with the folks that have the adjacent property that indicate that that can be accomplished, so the condition takes care of that. With the determination by the Commission this evening on the stub streets, those that we have proposed and those that have been requested by staff, there will be conditions that deal with that. Certainly, a new Phasing Plan as a requirement for a refinement of the plan to be submitted onto the City Council will be provided. We don't believe that a continuance is necessary. We think that the Commission, in your deliberations with regard to the Lot 57, Block 3, and the sanitary sewer easement and these other items that Dave and I have addressed, certainly give the Commission the opportunity to make a decision this evening. We request that you do recommend approval of the annexation and zoning, of the Preliminary Plat, and of the Conditional Use Permit with staff's recommended findings and recommended conditions of approval as modified by the changes that we have set forth this evening. I would point out that when it all boils down, even with Lot 57, Block 3, that this application does conform to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in terms of the excepted uses. I think even with that one, the total excepted uses still are in the range of less than 17 percent. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer questions and, then, there may be some additional comments by others representing Paramount. Borup: Okay. Questions for Mr. Wardle? Mathes: I have a question so, are you saying you agree with Bruce on what Bruce said about the easements? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mathes, no, we are requesting deletion of that specific requirement, that condition number four in the annexation and condition number one in the Preliminary Plat, the second paragraph in that first condition. Mathes: Okay. Wardle: So, no, we don't agree with Mr. Freckleton, but we are friendly about it. Mathes: It would make it easier if you did agree. Centers: Well, you didn't address it. Is someone else going to address it? I mean he wrote a four-page memo here. Wardle: Which we haven't seen, by the way. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 38 of 90 Centers: Really? You should have a copy for him. Wardle: I mean we had seen that before this evening reading it. Not to put the bad mouth on staff, but it's just something that -- obviously, a lot of things going on at the last moment today on both sides. Borup: I don't think he said anything new that should have been unanticipated. Wardle: No. No. Now, we don't -- and we understand their position, but we also -- Mr. Turnbull may want to make a comment or -- Borup: That's what -- I'll repeat again, someone else was going to be addressing that issue? Okay. Anyone else with -- any other questions for Mr. Wardle? Zaremba: I have a question that has not been touched on at the moment. In our packet, there is a letter from Dan Kuntz of the Idaho Transportation Department, actually, addressed to Will Berg, who is our City Clerk but it's regarding this project. He is suggesting that along US 26, which is your northern border, you provide 120 feet from the centerline of right of way or 70 feet if you're going have internal roads. I realize that that the future development up there is not before us this evening, but are you aware of this letter and that requirement and -- Wardle: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we are. It simply says if there is going to be a frontage road system they need a wider right of way. If there is internal access that probably would be provided for a system like this, the narrower, so we are aware. Zaremba: You're aware of that? Wardle: Yes. Centers: One question while I think of it. I was going to ask it earlier, but I didn't want to interrupt you too much. I don't see any stub streets to your future single-family area. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, it's because they all have direct access to these streets and so we aware of how that will be served and it will be served by -- it will be as connected as this area is, but we simply don't have the ability at this point with some of the ownership issues to address that tonight. That will come back in a specific Preliminary Plat that will show all of the connections. Borup: There is more than a stub it's got a continuous road for the property you're saying? Wardle: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 39 of 90 Borup: And the same as the area up there, too, that someone's pointing out? Yes. That's also future -- Wardle: That's not part of -- Borup: Oh. I realize that, but that's -- Wardle: That's correct. It has -- it has direct access to -- from two internal roadways. Borup: But that's under the same ownership? Conceptually proposed in the future? This plat -- this little map we have right here shows both those parcels as part of the application. Wardle: That's probably not the map that we prepared, however, but -- Borup: No. Wardle: You will see applications in the future, Mr. Chairman, that probably will hopefully make this entire section one very, very strong community element. Centers: You know, I agree with you on -- on the stub streets if you could go back to your arrowed stub streets, which were done very nicely. No the big one. There we go. Well, one more. Wardle: One more. Centers: I tend to agree with you. You know, we have got one here and -- I guess I agree with that. Why would that property owner want a curb cut there? I agree with that but I don't agree here. That's 160 acres correct? Wardle: No. That's 40 acres. Centers: I thought you said on the quarter mile so, it's 40 acres? Wardle: Yes but see, this is a quarter mile to this point, so it's a 40-acre -- Centers: But the -- even though that's one property owner, I got to think there would be a need for a stub street there, as well as there. Of course, not there and, of course, you have to provide connectivity to that -- or not have to, but -- Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, that parcel could take access from up here, as well in the future and, you know, they may come back together. Who knows? Centers: Yes. Right. Right. I pretty much agree with you on the stubs. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 40 of 90 Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, if you look at this project in contrast to most of the projects that come forward, virtually on just -- most recently, we are being -- we are over-stubbing. We are being stubbed to death a little bit in this particular regard and, again, the fact that we have good accessibility to all these parcels, we think that we have accommodated the future needs. Centers: Well, two wrongs don’t make two rights. Zaremba: Let me just clarify one thing and I think it was your suggestion. A compromise in this area, instead of having both of those, maybe just have this street, instead of either one of those. Is that what you're suggesting? Wardle: Yes, sir. We would be willing to work on that. Centers: Move this one down. Wardle: Yes. Yes. Zaremba: Yes. I like that idea. Centers: And it sounds like you're willing to work on this. Wardle: We are willing -- Centers: As the Chairman stated that's way off. You come back with an annexation for a commercial, retail, or whatever at a later date for Lot 57. Zaremba: Just leave that out from -- Centers: Yes. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, we are interested in moving this project forward and particularly with the components that are short term, which is the bulk of this project, and if in your wisdom you feel that Lot 57, Block 3, (inaudible) the findings, we will defer to your decision. We want to move forward. Centers: Well, what I saw about Lot 57 was it didn't meet any of the findings. Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, I employed my -- Centers: You circled them all. Wardle: I employed my good associate Jonathan Wardle to help articulate some good rationale for these findings and I thought he did a great job. Centers: He wrote it and you signed it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 41 of 90 Wardle: Absolutely. Centers: Okay. Wardle: I modified it. Borup: Okay. Anything -- I'd like to get back on this one up here, Mr. Wardle. Is there a reason this stub street can't be up there on the northern boundary? I realize it doesn't align with the other -- with the other road, but -- Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I guess the only issue there -- Borup: Any city design ordinance? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, it would be an issue with ACHD. It would have to be, I think, 125 feet center line to center line offset from -- Borup: Yes. Wardle: Staff's shaking their head correct. The best we could do up there would be like a half -- a half right of way alignment and I'm not sure anybody would get really excited about that. Borup: The reason I asked that, I have seen that in another subdivision. It's also in another county, but -- Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to let Mr. Turnbull address a couple of these issues. Borup: Let's see if there are any others questions for you before you leave. Maybe I would be interested in a comment on the irrigation ditches. You don't want to have it on the plat. Is that a hardship to show them on there or -- Wardle: Mr. Chairman, if -- Borup: You didn't really expound on why not. Wardle: I did, Mr. Chairman, in the sense that it is at this point on a Preliminary Plat somewhat hypothetical on precisely what the design -- because I think the wording is that -- how those are to be treated. Borup: No. Just the location of them was my understanding. They just want to know where existing ditches are located. Or am I -- Dave, wasn't that -- wasn't that the -- or, Bruce, the location of the existing irrigation ditches? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 42 of 90 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. We -- the ordinance is real specific on that. Section -- or 12-3-3-F13, which is under the Preliminary Plat requirements, the following shall be shown on the Preliminary Plat or shall submitted separately. Item Number 13 states any proposed or existing utilities, including, but not limited to, storm and sanitary sewers, irrigation laterals, ditches, drainages, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants, street lights, and their respective profiles. Borup: Isn't there some flexibility on the proposed irrigation? Freckleton: Typically, what I look for is the treatment of the ditch. Are you going to abandon it in place or are you going to pipe it and maybe some proposed routing for the piping. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have our engineer Mr. Smith address that one and Mr. Turnbull will talk about the sewer easement. Borup: Okay. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Gene Smith with Engineering Northwest, 423 North Ancestor Place in Boise. The relocation or tiling of any of the irrigation ditches -- first of all, let me back up. The Preliminary Plat does have a topography showing the existing irrigation ditches on it and so those are -- those are shown on the Preliminary Plat. So far as relocation or tiling of any of those ditches, we have to go back through Settler's Irrigation in order to get their review and approval of anything we propose to do with those ditches. We have to, furthermore, enter into a License Agreement with them in order to make that happen. Identifying how those ditches are to be located at this time is kind of a mute point, because -- well, for example, some of the -- some of the irrigation water that serves Lochsa development goes through the Paramount project. It's my understanding that some of those waters are being transferred to other ditches that are not going through Paramount, so at a future point in time those ditches won't be needed. I can't tell you today what's going to happen with those ditches and it's not going to be for some time until we know exactly what is going to happen. I guess, furthermore, those rights would completely go away and ditches would no longer be needed. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could maybe just address that while we are on the subject. Without the information, being provided on the Preliminary Plat or separately, staff has no idea what Mr. Smith just explained to us. There may be existing easements on these ditches that need to be vacated, new easements that have to be dedicated, routing of those ditches is very important. As you might recall from the Verona application that went through here and the routing of the ditch along the public right of way and the required width of that easement, how it bit into the landscape setbacks along the road. These are all items that we try and identify early, early on in a project, so that we can work through them. There is also the issue of the profile of the ditch versus the profile of sewer and water as they go through the project. If we have got any Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 43 of 90 conflicts, we'd like to identify those early on. That's a little bit of the why we want the information. Borup: Okay. Smith: If I could respond to that. I'm not an attorney. Ms. Butler can probably explain more than I, but it's my understanding Idaho water law that any irrigation ditch has a prescribed easement on it. So far as a specific easement on that ditch, it may not have a specific easement and it says something to the effect that that easement width is such that the Irrigation Company -- or the Irrigation District has an easement in width necessary for them to operate and maintain that ditch. Well, if that goes to a subdivision, city code requires us to tile those ditches if it's under a certain size and, therefore, that easement sometimes is reduced. I can't tell you what the easement width is on those ditches at this time so far as a profile of the -- Borup: Well, you can tell what is -- show what the existing easement is, though, can't you? Smith: No, I can't. Borup: You're saying there does not exist easements. Smith: No. I'm saying that they have an un-proscribed width for those easements and each -- Borup: I don't think I have seen that on an application that didn't have a specified width. Smith: We run on less and -- Borup: They come in and they arbitrarily set it down, but there has always been a prescribed width. Smith: We run into it on just about every subdivision we do. Nampa-Meridian requires one width for one ditch so far from centerline, Settler's might require -- Borup: Right. Right, but it's -- the ditches that are through there, if they are under their jurisdiction, does have a prescribed easement width, don't they? Smith: No, they do not. Borup: Have you seen that, Bruce? Is that -- Smith: Nampa-Meridian has a book out with prescribed easements for a lot of their ditches. Settler's does not. Borup: Okay. I guess I -- yes but Nampa-Meridian does on all of theirs? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 44 of 90 Smith: Not on all of them on several of them. Numerous they do. Borup: Most of the projects we have had thus far have been Nampa-Meridian. We are getting further out and getting a different irrigation district. Smith: So far as showing a profile of how an irrigation ditch conflicts with sewer and water, where ever you have a road crossing where you have sewer and water and a ditch crossing, the ditch is siphoned underneath the sewer and water. Until you get into the design of the actual sewer and water, I can't tell you how that profile of the irrigation ditch is going to look. If we are talking about Phase 10 and Phase 14, whatever it is, on the east side, that's -- we are way too premature to show what a profiled irrigation tiling is going to look like at this point in time. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I hate to belabor this, but there is one more issue in regards to the ditches. As you may recall, there have been several projects that have come through that staff has required the creation of a common lot for the -- for a ditch to traverse through a project, due to its size and the location of the cleanout boxes that are required. Without the information being provided up front, we can't make those determinations and I really hate to see a Preliminary Plate approved that, you know, we didn't have the opportunity to look at the routing and determine whether common lots or additional easements are necessary for those ditches. Mr. Smith is right, water law does have very specific requirements for the treatment of the ditches and the drainages through each project and the irrigation district is the one who is going to be looking out for that on the ones that they have control of. There is other ditches that are simply users lateral ditches that by default the city becomes the watch dog to make sure that those ditches are treated correctly and that the downstream users are provided their historical flow of water at its historical delivery points and proper easements are in place for it and it that sort of thing. You know, it's something that we feel is very important to have. Smith: May I respond? Borup: Okay. Smith: I wasn't aware -- I have been doing subdivisions here in Meridian for quite some time and I don't recall -- I don't recall any specific times where the city has reviewed the irrigation district ditches. The irrigation districts have reviewed those irrigation ditches and we have been required to provide the information and the criteria for the irrigation districts. As far as a user ditch, if there is a user ditch traversing through the site, here again, water law requires that we provide the same amount of water at the same location as the irrigator previously received that -- that water from. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 45 of 90 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this to you again. A point of clarification. On a facility that is owned by an irrigation district, the city does not provide review of those. The requirement for review on a users lateral ditch, per water law, is by the irrigation drainage lateral users association. Basically, the users of the ditch are the ones that have to review and approve that. The City of Meridian does require that the applicants supply us with written approval from that group of individuals for their approval of the design. Our comment further goes on to say that if lateral user association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Meridian and the Meridian city engineer prior to Final Plat signature. We do end up getting involved by default, like I said. Smith: And Bruce just mentioned prior to Final Plat signature so, I would agree. Zaremba: These would be marked on a Final Plat. Smith: Pardon me? Zaremba: These would all be shown on a Final Plat. Smith: The ditches are not shown. The easements are shown. Zaremba: Yes. The easements. Smith: Correct. Borup: Do you have any idea how many users are involved? Smith: No, I don't. Not at this point, no. Borup: That might make quit a difference with a project this size. There may not be that many people that you need to coordinate with anyway. Smith: Well, as I said to begin with, there are some projects with irrigation water going through Paramount presently that is being transferred out as we speak. Borup: In a users ditch? Smith: Couldn't tell you if it's -- I can't tell you where they take it out. I can't tell you where the head gate is. Borup: Okay. Smith: If the head gate is over on Meridian Road, that's a user ditch all the way across, because the Irrigation District only takes it to the head gate. Borup: Right. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 46 of 90 Smith: Any other questions? Borup: Anything else for -- that was all you had to address? Smith: Yes. Borup: All right. Smith: Thank you. Borup: Do we know who is coming up next? Butler: JoAnn Butler. 251 East Front Street. Is this on the irrigation issue? I think on the sanitary sewer, can we wait until rebuttal time. We'd like to hear from the public, too, to see if there are any issues that come up that we can address at rebuttal as well. Borup: I think the Commission would like to hear some about the sanitary sewer right now. At least I would, for one. Butler: Okay. We are going to tag team this a little bit. Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is David Turnbull. My address is 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I have not had a chance to review Mr. Freckleton’s letter. He makes several points. I will just deal with -- Borup: I think to condense it down he's saying that the sewer easement should be continued through the project. Turnbull: Okay. Borup: That's pretty much it. Turnbull: Yes. Let me just get to my notes here. We will make some points here and Ms. Butler can probably follow up on these things. The Number 1 point was made. We don't own all the property that is subject to that sewer easement. We have -- this is a condition that would be placed on us that is out of our hands and not necessarily within our control to meet and so we object on those grounds. Borup: Could you expound on that a little bit? Are you saying you have never done a subdivision development before that you have not physically owned the property that you haven't obtained an easement through? Turnbull: I have never gone to an owner of property before I purchased the property, taken it down, and obtained easement over their property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 47 of 90 Borup: Okay. Turnbull: You know, I have been required to purchase it as -- on some of those that you can probably appreciate, some of these farmers, when they do option their ground, they want to keep farming the ground that they retain. They don't want a sewer line running zigzagging across their property and -- which gets accompanied by at least a 20-foot wide gravel road going over their property, which, in turn, you know, interrupts their irrigation patterns and interrupts their harvesting patterns and so forth, so -- Borup: Do we have any of those homeowners here -- or landowners here tonight? Turnbull: I don't believe so. Borup: Okay. Turnbull: Secondly, determining the final alignment for a future sewer trunk prior to platting any of our own property is really not reasonable. It requires us to make final decisions on a variety of issues before we are prepared to do so. First would be the road alignment must be set in stone with no ability to make any modifications. This is a Preliminary Plat and oftentimes you make some adjustments along the way, as you go to Final Plat, you make some minor adjustments. Secondly, lot lines would need to be determined years in advance for sewer services. It is very impractical to go back on a sewer trunk line, dig up the old sewer trunk line, so you can install sewer stubs. Essentially, you would be asking us to try to predetermine exactly where those lot lines would be in every case on phases that would be in the future. As I mentioned before, sewer line -- the service road raises havoc with the farming operations. We will commit -- you know, I guess the one area here where I take exception is the White Trunk Drain has been used as a comparison. That was a project that was initiated by the city for the city's own purposes and they determined that that would be a Public Works project. This is not a Public Works project we are talking about here. The city is, essentially, trying to condemn on behalf of someone else a sewer easement across this property. If the city came forward and determined, for instance, that to serve Vienna Woods, which is, as we know, out there a ways, you know, if they used up their capacity in the While Trunk Drain, then, you know, they could initiate a Public Works project and we would commit to working with them. We have no objection to that. We can commit to working with the city if and when they come forward with a Public Works project. Finally, the point was made that we wouldn't have sewer in the Paramount site if it weren't for the extension of the sewer through the Lochsa site. That was subject to a separate agreement between two developers and it was a Contractual Agreement. The agreement came down basically because we owned -- we had a contract on some property in the Lochsa project, they had some -- a contract on some of the parcels in the Paramount project. We agreed to exchange those parcels, in addition to exchanging those parcels we worked out a cost sharing arrangement on extending both water, and sewer lines through the individual properties. That was by contractual arrangement and that's why we have sewer service to Paramount. You know, I take exception to the city, essentially, condemning the sewer easement for the benefit of a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 48 of 90 private party, which is what appears to me to be the case in this point. At, I might add, great difficulty, expense, and time delays to the Paramount development for the benefit of someone else. That's, essentially, all the comments that I had on the sewer issue. I'll stand for any questions or if you wish me to address another topic, I can do that as well. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Rohm: I just have one question. Bruce brought up in his discussion that the property to the east, I believe, would be hostage to this development, if, in fact, that easement is not in place, so the sewer line could get across that property. How do you respond to that? Turnbull: I would respond that I would like an instance on the non-Public Works initiated project any instance where the city has gone in and required an easement of another property owner to benefit another property owner when it's not a Public Works initiated project. If the city wants to initiate a Public Works project, then, we will do whatever we can within our power. Like I said, it's not within our power to grant easements on property we don't own. Mr. Freckleton noted that in our Quenzer Commons project that we cooperated with the city to provide that easement. I would have, if they had come to me, but, quite frankly, that easement was obtained, I believe, by purchase through Mr. Quenzer himself before we ever optioned the property. They had dealt with Mr. Quenzer in obtaining that easement. You know, we would be happy to cooperate with the city when they have a Public Works project. Like I said, that was a project that the City Council determined was a high priority for the city, that they wanted to extend the sewer line three miles and they went out to acquire the easements. Like I said, probably compensated Mr. Quenzer for the loss of his usable property and the loss of his farming capability and so forth. Centers: Mr. Chairman, let me ask you just one question and maybe you can give me a yes or no answer. If you owned all the land in fee simple, we wouldn't have a problem with this condition, would we? Yes or no. Turnbull: Excuse me? Centers: If you owned it all in fee simple and didn't have options on it, you wouldn't have a problem with that condition, would you? Turnbull: If I owned it in fee simple, I would still expect that there would be compensation to -- for that easement if it were benefiting another private owner. In other words, we would have to go through a great deal of expense to do engineering, to do studies, to do -- and as well as the disruption to any farming operation to provide that easement to somebody else's benefits. We would be able to grant the easement, but it would be at a disadvantage to us -- you know, at a cost to us for the benefit of somebody else and I just don't think it's equitable to transfer those costs to -- from one party to another when it benefits the other party. Now, you know -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 49 of 90 Borup: Isn't that one of the purposes of the latecomer fees? Turnbull: Latecomer fees typically don't cover those kinds of issues. Borup: That doesn't go to -- that does not go to the developer that installs -- Turnbull: They don't -- generally, they don't take into consideration loss of farming operation and those kinds of things. Borup: Well, no. Well, I don't consider that -- I mean there may be a loss of farming, but I don't think there is a decrease in the value of the property. Turnbull: I didn't say there was a decrease in the value of the property. There is decrease in the value of the operation of that property. Borup: Such as the farm ground yes any other questions? Turnbull: I'd like to yield to Ms. Butler. Butler: Thank you. JoAnn Butler. I would like to take a couple minutes with this issue, because there is a larger Constitutional issue that we are dealing with here and that has not been so far addressed, although Mr. Turnbull has addressed it here. Mr. Freckleton is correct, that in a very short conversation I had with Bill Nichols today I said I don't want to be in a position of performing -- having to try to perform -- act as agent for the city and go out and try to get easements. That's not the whole issue and, unfortunately, Ms. Holinka and I could not -- we traded calls all day and couldn't talk about this first, so I'll talk about it with the Commission. The plat that's submitted shows compliance with all of the Preliminary Plat requirements of Meridian and the condition for plat approval cannot be added which is beyond the authority that you have delegated to you by the state or under your City Code, such as requiring an easement prior to Final Plat. At this Preliminary Plat stage, there is no requirement that public easements be provided. That dedication is provided with the recordation of the Final Plat. Unless you were going out and negotiating under your eminent domain powers easements. If there were, a strict public need for sewer at this point in time, you know what the city would do today, it would use its power of condemnation, acquire easements, and build a sewer, but it's just not the case today. It's inappropriate to require, with this Preliminary Plat applicant, in essence, to have them comply with Final Plat issues before that Final Plat has even been submitted, as putting the cart way before the horse. It is a primary prerequisite for a Final Plat that we have to have final engineering and we have to have adequate sewer easements dedicated to the public before that need rises, but that need arises when those lots are salable and available for development. Just like any development exaction -- and this is what you're asking, this is a development exaction. To be valid, there has to be a reasonable relationship to what's required now and the specific problem or the specific needs generated now and the need is not today, it's not generated at this Preliminary Plat stage, no lots can be sold, no lots can be occupied. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 50 of 90 Legally, what can be reasonably required will depend on the immediacy of the Subdivision Plans and, further, the condition that staff is proposing at this Preliminary Plat stage that we come up with easements across this property that we don't own, basically, allows the city to skirt its Constitutional requirements. It might be an ingenious thought, but it's not right and it's not legal. We don't own the property you're asking us to encumber. If there is a public need, again, for sewer today, the government, the city, should acquire the property through condemnation. You are asking the existing property owner -- I'm not talking about the applicant, I'm talking about the existing property owner, you are asking with this condition, the existing property owner to give up their Constitutional right to receive compensation for property that's going to be used for sewer for a public purpose. Now, the applicant has said it's pleased to give that and dedicate that easement at each Final Plat stage when the need arises and, that's fine, you get it gratis then. If you're asking to do it ahead of time before that need arises, then, like with your other public projects, it's up to the city to acquire those easements. The staff indicated that if you don't adopt this condition of approval, then, the developer controls development in this area. That is just incorrect. The city controls development in the area. If the city truly believes there is a public need now, then, they have to exercise their eminent domain authority, condemn the easements, pay the present landowner a just compensation that it deserves, and build the service, but with no immediate need -- and need is not defined as the competitive desires of another property owner in the area. With no need for service at this point, then, the applicant should not, prior to that Final Plat approval, when the need again does become immediate. They shouldn't be required to give to you gratis sewer easements and they shouldn't be able to -- they shouldn't have to act as the city's agent to try to cajole that existing property owner to give up their Constitutional right. Somebody asked the question earlier today but didn't they provide permission for you to bring up this application to the city? They certainly did but by giving permission to bring an application to the city, that existing property owner didn't give up their Constitutional rights. They weren't saying that. They were saying we are giving you permission to take this through, assuming that the city is going to put reasonable, valid conditions of approval on the project. I guess that, in summary, I'd just say the city can't set goals -- you can certainly set goals for sewer service in the area, but you cannot avoid your Constitutional requirements to pay for that sewer service until the need arises. Now, this developer is proposing a project that has been phased and the phasing will indicate at each step of the way what need arises and at that time they will absolutely dedicate those easements for sewer service in the alignments that are final engineered as required by your preliminary -- or, I'm sorry, by your Final Plat requirements. I'm saying that this condition on a Preliminary Plat stage would be invalid and unreasonable. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Mr. Centers. Centers: Couldn't hardly wait. This isn't a court of law and I object to anyone coming and talking about a Constitutional law and Constitutional rights and this is illegal -- I'm afraid to do anything. I might be sued, because I acted illegally. What you should do is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 51 of 90 workout your problem before it gets here. You're an attorney, you mentioned Mr. Nichols, work it out, get it taken care of with staff before you come and see us. I don't like to be addressed like we are the Supreme Court sitting here. I'm offended. I really am. To make accusations that we might break the law or it's not constitutional -- I don't need your response. I really don't. I'm just making my point that it should have been done before it got to this body. Butler: Thank you, Mr. Centers. Centers: Because we don't know the law. Butler: Commissioner Centers -- Centers: Sure. Butler: -- there is no -- do not take this incorrectly. When I come before any city, including this one -- well, first of all, I appreciate what you're saying about trying to work it out with the city attorney ahead of time. I think your City Attorney knows that we do try to do that every step of the way and we could not connect this week, it just was impossible. I think it -- but I want to say before I come to the city at the city, I am never threatening a lawsuit or saying anything. I spent a lot of time with the legislature this year talking about legislative issues and talking about the need to educate and that's all we are talking about. I'm not saying that the city is about to step into something I'm saying here is a consideration. I would hope that -- I would hope that the city -- I'm sorry. That the P&Z would just accept that as a comment, but don't forget about the existing landowner that's there. Centers: Well, I don't take it that way. I take it as be careful -- you know, be careful and, you know, we are not attorneys up here and you should have worked it out, in my humble opinion, with our attorney. If we are acting illegally, then, strike Condition Number 4 totally. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, my latest conversation with Mr. Freckleton today was purely to that point. He said, with all due respect, we are not going to -- staff's position is not going to change. We have tried to workout the issues. We have one of these disagreements to disagree. Centers: Well, excuse me, Mr. Wardle. You look for us to override staff when staff writes a four-page memo where they are totally adamant that this must be included. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, that's the purpose of this Commission is to make a determination based on the testimony on any and all issues that are presented in an application and from staff. It is your position to make that determination and if you agree with staff, you hold with the condition. So -- and you can overturn staff. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 52 of 90 Centers: Oh, we have done it. Oh, we have done it. They'll tell you that, you know, but -- so anyway. Wardle: Appreciate it. Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could respond briefly to Ms. Butler’s comments also. She's right, we tried to connect all week and didn't get a chance to, but I know she was talking specifically about a Preliminary Plat approval. This Specific Site Recommendation Number 4 is under the annexation and zoning and the city is working in a legislative capacity in that decision and can add any kind of approval condition that they would like. I would also like to point out that the condition states that easements would be required prior to the Final Plat approval. It wouldn't be required for the Preliminary Plat. That condition is already stated in there, which I think takes care of that concern. Borup: Aren't those two statements in conflict with each other because the Final Plat will be phased, won't it? As each phase comes on is when the Final Plat is submitted and I think the applicant stated that that's definitely part of each Final Plat. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I could clarify that if you'd like. The comment reads the applicant shall be required to dedicate a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement through the project to Meridian Road for the North Slough Sewer Trunk after the Preliminary Plat approval by the Meridian City Council and prior to submittal of the application for Final Plat for Phase 1. What we are stating is -- we are giving them some time to work out those alignment details and things that they are going to have to at their Final Plat. Prior to submittal of the first phase, which would be over on the west boundary area, we would like to have the easement all the way through to Meridian Road. The reason we wrote it the way we worded it was to give them some time to workout the actual alignment details and by the time they have an approved Preliminary Plat they should be able to grant the easements in the alignment that's approved. Borup: Is this a requirement you have ever placed on a previous project? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, we have -- like I stated before, the -- in the White Drain, we worked for about four years trying to obtain the easements on that. Borup: Right but that's different. Freckleton: When the -- Borup: Have there been any other -- Freckleton: When the Tuscany Lakes project came in, there were two developers at the time that project came in -- Marty Goldsmith owned I believe it was 40 acres over on Eagle Road frontage. Without sewer through the Tuscany project, he was locked out of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 53 of 90 sewer service. A sewer easement was dedicated across the project, so that those 40 acres would have access to the sewer. Borup: Okay. The other question I had -- and that's probably what, to me, really, makes a difference is a real world situation and have there been any inquiries for any development to the east? Freckleton: Yes. Borup: Other than Vienna Woods and -- Freckleton: Yes. Borup: Do you know what size acres, number of acres, or -- and that section seems to have a lot more smaller parcels -- a lot smaller parcels in it than -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have received several inquiries about properties. No formal application has been filed. There are, like you said, several smaller pieces, but there are some larger pieces as well. Without application, I'm a little hesitant to give you a whole lot of information. Borup: No. I understand. I just wanted to know if we had -- Freckleton: We have had inquiries, yes. Borup: That was all I was wondering. Zaremba: I may be missing something, but it's my recollection that almost every project we have had has had wording in it that says that the sewer lines must be provided through and -- Borup: To and through. Zaremba: To and through and, obviously, that means that easement have to be -- Borup: But it also stated at the time of Final Plat. Freckleton: Yes. Centers: That's what this says. Zaremba: Well -- and that's when they should be finalized. I mean to me Ms. Butler’s argument is there is no reason to have a Preliminary Plat. You don't want to put anything on it, we don't own the property, we haven't made the decisions yet, why should we have a Preliminary Plat, it's all going to go on the Final Plat. To me, the purpose of a Preliminary Plat is to start making those decisions to have some idea of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 54 of 90 where those things are going, for one, to prove you have ownership of the land that you're trying to propose a project on. Many decisions are being put off that I'm -- unfortunately, on the whole, I think it would be a fine project, but I don't think they are ready to present it yet. Borup: I have on other question for -- maybe Mr. Wardle and that's the other thing that we -- there has been a lot of talk about parcels that aren't owned and no control over. Could we designate which those parcels are? I assume they are along the eastern edge. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't know if that's -- let's just put this in context. Every project that has come through this Commission is a combination of ownership and options. What we are submitting here is absolutely no different from any other project -- Borup: I understand, but -- Wardle: Mr. Chairman, let me -- would you -- I need to go to the phasing. Borup: It's right there. Wardle: Okay. Find my own. Phase 1 comes up to about this point. This is the extent of the fee ownership at this point. What staff is recommending that you do is you tell this developer that when you do phase one you also have to do the sewer all the way over here. You have to provide the easements for everything that you're contemplating doing in the future over to Meridian Road. There is absolutely no reason that the other parties that are looking for that service wouldn't be the ones to come and make the deal with this developer. Instead of the city basically saying -- and I apologize if the word Constitutional -- but you're basically saying we are going to require you, for the privilege of developing this piece, to go through and provide the easements with no compensation and no consideration from any of the other property owner that's going to benefit from that initially. To get your approval for this you have got to give that. Borup: If someone was going to make use of those easements they would also have to put that trunk line in, wouldn't they? That's not -- you wouldn't be required to install the trunk line. Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's the point. Let that particular party come and make the deal for whatever their needs are going to do. Borup: Are you saying it wouldn't benefit your project for another developer to come in and install that trunk line? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying that it's a benefit or not a benefit -- no, let me answer your question. There may be a benefit in letting somebody else do that, but it also has implications, because you have to make decisions on your property -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 55 of 90 Borup: We understand that. Wardle: -- that may, then, become irrevocable and the market could change. You could have issues that you have now sewer lines in that are going to cost you in the future. There is a lot of consideration, but the city is saying not -- don't let -- don't make the developer come and strike the deal to do this, we want you to require -- just give it gratis at this point in time when the first phase is right there and that's the extent of the ownership. Borup: That's what I want to clarify. This -- phase one is the extent -- those are the nine parcels that -- Wardle: This is another parcel. This property up in here and there is property over here, but in terms of the ownership that comes down this line and across here and all of this property at this point is not fee owned by Paramount. It's optioned and that's -- Borup: So, from that point over it would all be optioned? Wardle: Correct. Just the same, as with probably most of the other big projects that, you have seen. Borup: Right. Centers: Well, Mr. Wardle, in the Site-Specific Number 1, under Preliminary Plat, they talk about the latecomer fees. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, it's -- you know, Mr. Centers, absolutely, all of those issues are there, it's just the fact that they are asking this developer to do something initially for the benefit not of the city. As Mr. Turnbull pointed out at this point, not for the benefit of the city, but for the benefit of another property owner that needs to be the one to come and make the deal and if they can workout the deal, fine, but if there is a need that comes up -- and, certainly, the city could get involved. It's not to be hard headed about it, it's just -- it's basically to protect their position and not encumber their ground and cause problems for them that they are not compensated for at this point just about as simple as that. Borup: Do you know any approximate time line? Do you know when you would be to Phase 5, which, I guess is the elementary school site? Is there any projection on that? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I don't know that we have actually put dates on it, but knowing where the market is today, it's probably several years away, but I want to go back and answer the question that Mr. Freckleton -- that you asked Mr. Freckleton, has this condition been placed on before. Actually, the answer to that question, as he answered it to me on the telephone this afternoon is, no, you have not done so. There have been Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 56 of 90 some Development Agreements where these issues were worked out, but not as a requirement on a Preliminary Plat. Centers: I see Mr. Freckleton wanting to respond. Wardle: I'm sure he does. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Zaremba: I'm still wondering -- every proposal has had -- you have got to put it to and through and your only problem is that you don't own property now that you're going to own eventually. Borup: I think the -- and the other statement is the street alignments could change. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Zaremba, in due course that sewer will be extended through and it's possible that it can be expedited if somebody wants to come and workout the details of that. Essentially, what's being said is that before you even do the first phase you have to have all those details, engineering, and everything else done all the way through to Meridian Road. That is not a requirement of a Preliminary Plat or a first phase of a project, unless the city has gone through, as they did the White Drain, and worked out a total system and in this case, that's not the case. You're simply saying we want you to make all of your decisions and get your locations precisely aligned, so we can get the sewer there for your first phase, when, in fact, eventually it will -- it will occur that way. It will happen but just the same as every other project. Zaremba: And you're asking us to annex the whole thing, zone the whole thing, and approve a CUP for the whole thing. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, we are asking for the same thing that as been approved for every other project that in all cases they will phase their infrastructure as well as with each Final Plat phase. We are not asking for anything different, but we are asking for the same treatment. Centers: Well, Mr. Wardle, I think Bruce makes a good point in his memo if you read it, though. By not putting it through you're holding -- I don't know where my pointer is -- the properties on this side hostage and Vienna Woods has a lift station that they would like to discontinue use. I think that was the case. If you don't develop, who knows when? I think that's Bruce's point so, you know, you have got it through Phase 1 and you're done and then -- so I think that's the main point that he's talking about. Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, I agree, but it's not holding anybody hostage if the city feels. As Ms. Butler pointed out, that there is a need to get that lift station off sooner than late, then, the city can come forward and work with us on that and provide the appropriate compensations to initially the property owners that are not Paramount, so there are ways to do this, I think we are just perhaps -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 57 of 90 Centers: That's another good point to go back and talk to the city. Wardle: Well, Mr. -- Centers: If you want the city to help pay for that. I can understand where you're coming from there, that's some big bucks, but, then, you need to talk to the powers that be -- Wardle: But they are not asking -- Centers: -- before you come here, because -- Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, we have, we have, we have, we have. We have been talking about this with staff for several -- at least a week, if not longer than that. I suspect that there has been earlier conversation, because when we got the staff report and saw that, we started having some discussions. This is not cold turkey this evening. Centers: So, you want to get to the Council level where the decision can be made and they can decide if they want to spend the money, if you can get them to do that. We can -- we can recommend it, but we can't spend the city's money. Borup: The applicant's not asking the city to do that. Centers: We would if we wanted to put it through to Vienna Woods and the properties that -- Borup: Well, that's -- Centers: That's what the applicant is saying, that if the city wants it to extend, because of Vienna Woods and other properties owners, then, they can pay for it. Wardle: Or work with us on the issues, but right now we are simply saying -- Centers: I don't say that I disagree with that, but I can't spend the money. Wardle: The city at this point is simply saying you just give it to us, aside from any hardships or final decisions or engineering that it really costs you to make those decisions on precise alignments today, when, in fact, that might be three or four or five years down the line. Centers: Prior to Final Plat. Wardle: But it says for the first phase. For Phase 1 if you read the last three words in that condition. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 58 of 90 Borup: I think that's where the rub is. Wardle: That's the rub. Borup: They are saying they have 13 phases and it's all got to be done -- Wardle: Am I correct, the language? It's the last several words in that condition, in Number 4 in the annexation and that's on Page 8 of the staff report prior to submittal of the application for the Final Plat of Phase 1. We want all of that engineering, we want all of those precise alignments, and we want all of that done for your Phase 1. We are saying in due course it will all happen and if the city wants to come and work with us and other property owners want to work with us, that can be done as well. Don't put the burden on us prematurely to do all of that engineering, design, and make those irrevocable commitments on precise roadway and lots configurations and so forth before our Final Plat design mandates it. Appreciate this awfully long discussion. Borup: When you say engineering, you're talking about the road engineering? Wardle: The road -- Borup: You're not requiring any sewer engineering, are you? Required to do any sewer engineering. Wardle: Well, they haven't identified precisely who -- or how that would happen at this point, but, certainly, the road locations would be -- Borup: Right but my understanding that's all they were asking for. Wardle: But whenever anybody puts in that sewer, they are going to have to forecast out a number of years on precisely how all that is going to take place or you have to go back in and, then, cut into that sewer pipe for virtually every service that is going to be required. I have seen it done both ways and that's the more cumbersome. Thank you very much. Mathes: I have a question. Bruce, how come we didn't have this problem with Lochsa? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason there is because their first phase are being -- is being developed on the Linder Road frontage. In other words, adjacent -- directly adjacent to this project. As Mr. Turnbull, I believe, told you a little while ago, they entered into an agreement with the developer of Lochsa to -- as part of an exchange for property, to bring the sewer through, so that it was available to this project. Mathes: Yes, but they still have to go across the whole thing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 59 of 90 Freckleton: Absolutely. There is a mile of sewer that's being built across there and the alignment was set when the Preliminary Plat was approved same thing here. Mathes: Okay. Freckleton: One other point I did want to make, since I have the floor, if I might, is that when Mr. Wardle talked about installing sewer services and that they would have to lay out the lots and those lot lines would be locked in, Public Works Department simply would come against that request. We would not want them to put in sewer services for those lots. It's easy enough to dig down and put in a tap in a sewer main at the proper location at the time the lots are developed, so -- Borup: Taping a sewer main or a trunk line? Freckleton: A trunk line. Borup: The trunk line would still have individual lot services you're saying? Freckleton: Correct. Borup: What size is that trunk line, approximately? Freckleton: Twenty-four inch, I believe. Another point I did want to make is I believe Ms. Butler referred to the projects on the east side of the Paramount project -- if City Council did determine a need. City Council has the ability to allocate funds and start another Public Works project like we did with the White Drain to construct that sewer trunk on out to provide service to the east. I will leave it at that. Borup: Bruce, is there an anticipated path that that would take? I'm assuming it's coming down this street here to somewhere here and, then, the other choice would be going down this road out or down this road and out. Was that -- was that how you would anticipate it going? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the Facility Plan that was done by JUB Engineers shows the trunk line traversing roughly across the middle of the section. It would hit Meridian Road at the location of where they are showing their street. Now, it's always been our desire to work with development to follow the alignment of public streets and not just straight across. We would have to workout the alignment, whether we go up and down this one and, then, up through here or whether we drop down and come up or whatever. Those details just have to be worked out. Dave just pointed out that the trunk line is shown in the Utility Plan that was submitted with the Preliminary Plat. It shows it coming across here and, then, going up this road and out. Borup: Is that this one in the middle? Freckleton: No this one right by the elementary school correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 60 of 90 Borup: Okay. Freckleton: The other point that I just might want to make here is that as Jill brought up, it is an annexation and zoning condition of approval. If, after review by Legal Counsel, it is determined that it's not appropriate under the Preliminary Plat site-specific condition of approval, I would consent to removing that comment from those, but keeping it in the annexation conditions as stated. Borup: Well, then, this elementary school site -- does the school district have an option on that? Do we know? Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, David Turnbull. We have had preliminary discussions. We have worked with their architect to identify the site, but until two things happen. Number 1, we have an annexation and zoning and Conditional Use Permit application approved and, two, we have fee ownership of the property, we cannot enter into an agreement with, but it is committed to them. Borup: At that location? Turnbull: Through this platting process. Yes. Centers: Same way with the high school? Turnbull: The high school they own fee ownership of. Centers: The school district? Turnbull: The school district owns that. Borup: So, could the elementary school site shift or move? Turnbull: Yes, it could. Slightly. I mean that's the general location and that's the Preliminary Plat. You know, you're probably well aware that a Preliminary Plat is not a Final Plat. It is subject to modifications. If it's a significant modification, it may be required to go back for a revised Preliminary Plat. Minor modifications, adjusting lots and adjusting roads and things like that, are well within the requirements of moving from a preliminary to a Final Plat. Zaremba: I would include in that list easements for irrigation and -- I mean it's a Preliminary Plat. You put it where you think it's going to go. Borup: Right. Zaremba: And we all know it's not the Final Plat. I support staff that some idea about where it's going to end up should be included. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 61 of 90 Turnbull: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Zaremba, I think their condition probably went further than that and asked for profiles and things like that, which, you know -- Borup: We're talking about -- Turnbull: Let's be -- Borup: Not how I read it. They just said -- Turnbull: Oh. Excuse me. The -- excuse me. I was referring to the code that Mr. Freckleton read. Borup: Oh. Okay. Yes. That may be true. I think the staff comment just says location of the easement. Turnbull: And I think we need to be pretty candid and, you know, understand one thing, this is a large -- a large piece of property. There are numerous things that will be worked out on this property as each phase goes through. I think Mr. Smith of Engineering Northwest probably has identified many of those items, if not all of those items that were requested, you know, on the Preliminary Plat, but, you know, it has to be with the understanding that those things are preliminary. As they get into final engineering details and start working with the irrigation districts and other utilities, those things can move around. It doesn't really change the character of the plat and the Conditional Use Permit that you have approved, but it does change the construction drawings. I mean, Mr. Borup, you're a builder and I'm sure that if you were given, you know, a tissue drawing of a house to build and went out and built it, you would probably find there are a lot of mistakes. You kind of count on those final plans, much like a Final Plat with construction engineering drawings before you move through with a final decision. I think a lot of these issues, obviously, we identify them as close as we can on the Preliminary Plat, but, then, the Final Plat is where we review those final details with the city engineering department, Public Works Department, Planning and Zoning Department and that's when the Final Plat becomes the final decision. Borup: So, is it your understanding on the Preliminary Plat you have identified where the easements are to be? Turnbull: Easements for -- Borup: The sewer, what would -- Zaremba: And irrigation? Borup: Well, yes, I'm not so concerned about irrigation but the trunk line easement is identified on the Preliminary Plat? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 62 of 90 Turnbull: I believe the general sewer layout is shown, not easements specifically. Borup: Right. Turnbull: There are no easements. That goes within the public -- future public right of way. I would like to clarify something that was probably mentioned before on showing easements for irrigation -- irrigation facilities. As was mentioned, these easements, if they exist at all, are proscriptive easements. There is no legal definition of an easement. You could not go to the county recorder's office and find a recorded easement for those irrigation ditches. The districts claim a proscriptive easement, but there is no defined easement as such. Borup: They always claim a certain number of feet, too, don't they? Turnbull: Yes. Well, they -- yes and, therefore, there is no easement that an engineer -- a Licensed Engineer can legally show on a piece of paper, because it doesn't exist. Centers: A surveyor could. Borup: So, you're saying that's why they usually don't show up until the property is platted? Turnbull: They don't show up until the easement is granted. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might just ask a question. I just would like to know if that research has been done -- Borup: On the -- Freckleton: Whether there are existing easements of record. Borup: Oh, on this property you mean? Turnbull: There are none shown on the title report. Freckleton: Okay. Centers: Yes, but you know where the ditches are. Turnbull: Sure and those are indicated. Centers: My point on the surveyor, you can pinpoint those on your plat. Turnbull: And he's done that. Centers: Pardon? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 63 of 90 Turnbull: And he has done that. He has indicated where the existing ditches are on the Preliminary Plat. All I'm saying is there is no easement to indicate, because there is no easement that legally exists as a recorded document. Borup: Okay. I still have some other questions. Bruce, on the requirement to dedicate -- the staff statement is dedicating a permanent easement. If that road alignment changes, how complicated is that to move the easement? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the staff -- or staff comments, staff condition, is not only for a permanent easement, but also a construction easement. To specifically answer your question, if there is no sewer there at the time the road is moved, it's not an issue and it's not a big deal to move the easement. We did the exact same thing when Cedar -- or not Cedar Springs, Sundance came through. Borup: I was -- Freckleton: At the time the White Drain was designed and easements were acquired, our easement shot straight through along the north boundary of the -- Borup: So, it's a situation where they did it in two easements, didn't they? Freckleton: Yes. It shot straight through along the north boundary of Sundance property. After that easement was dedicated, the developer came in with his plan for the subdivision and we worked with them to move the trunk alignment over into a public right of way as it traversed through his project and he dedicated a new easement all the way through. At such time that that one was dedicated, we go back in, we vacate the original easement. It's not a big deal. We did the same thing -- actually, back up a little bit. The Cedar Springs project, we worked with that developer on the alignment of the sewer to follow the road alignments in Cedar Springs. Again, these were done based on Preliminary Plat approvals and alignments that are set at that point in time, so -- Borup: A couple other questions. Can you explain a little bit how latecomer fees are intended to work? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, it does raise an interesting point. This is something that City Council would probably have to address directly, but it may be possible for the applicant to request reimbursement for the value of the easement through his development. That's something that City Council and legal counsel are going to have to -- Borup: Well, how do latecomer fees normally work? Freckleton: Normally, if a developer builds an off-site line, that portion of the off-site line that serves other properties, he can get reimbursement for. Borup: It's just the off site? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 64 of 90 Freckleton: Correct. Borup: Okay. I wasn't sure. Freckleton: However, there are instances where trunk lines or larger diameter water lines go through the middle of a project and the developer will request oversize reimbursement. Basically, reimbursement for the cost of the line over and above what they would have incurred had it been an eight-inch diameter sewer, for instance, or eight-inch diameter water, so those costs can be figured as latecomers as well. Borup: Okay. Normally, in a situation like this, say there was an easement granted another developer wanted to make use of that, they would put that trunk line in at their own expense? Freckleton: That's correct. Borup: With no compensation expected from the first developer? Unless they reach some agreement, but there would be none required. Would that be your understanding? Freckleton: I don't know that the language of the ordinance would preclude that second developer from requesting a Latecomer's Agreement to collect his reimbursement costs. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: That's going to be City Council's call. Borup: So, that latecomers wouldn't be further upstream -- well, it could be anywhere along the line? Freckleton: Well, in the instance that you explained, it would have been an off-site cost for developer B. Borup: So, anybody -- anybody tying into that line could be subject to that fee? Freckleton: If the City Council deems that appropriate. Borup: Yes. Freckleton: Correct. Borup: And, then, likewise, if another developer came in and did that trunk line, they would normally be required to install stubs -- any lot stubs as designed by the first developer? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 65 of 90 Freckleton: No. Again, we would not -- we would not -- Public Works Department would come against any request for installation of services that does not have its final plans prepared. Borup: Why is that? Freckleton: Lot lines move. Borup: Okay. Which is also an argument for not having an easement, it sounds like, because your roads can move. Freckleton: Typically, when you get to the Preliminary Plat approval, you have gone before the Ada County Highway District -- Borup: Well, right. A Preliminary Plat. Yes. Freckleton: Exactly. Centers: Mr. Chairman, could I suggest a five-minute break and, then, you know, there is public there that would like -- Borup: Yes. We still want to get to them, too. Would it be good to do the public before the break? We only had three sign up, so -- why don't we do that. Whether you signed up or not, you have the opportunity, so let's go ahead and get the public testimony on record and, then, we will take a break, if that would be all right. Come on up, sir. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, good evening. I'm sure you don't want to hear about the fact that my rural lifestyle will be ruined with these two projects, so I will move on to the one concern I do have. Doug Stewart. 5960 North Linder Road. I am the last five-acre piece of property there. If I had a pointer, I would show you. Borup: You're on Linder? Stewart: Right there. Right there. For 27 years the ditch, which I irrigate out of, runs through all those backyards and there is a road to service that ditch, which runs up the side of the -- this ditch runs along the back of these two properties, turns, and goes up this way, cuts across this property, and goes all the way to Meridian Road. There is also an access road to maintain it that goes right here through the middle of the new church and up the backside all through these backyards, as well as the amount of water that's in this ditch is the amount of water that has serviced these properties and all these properties. As you know if you have ever irrigated, five inches is what you get on five acres, but the total amount of water that services all of this property traditionally has always come to my property, which is the last one. Most of it is lost in the ditch to begin with, so I have a hard time irrigating anyway. I want to make sure that I have access to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 66 of 90 the same amount of water that I've had for 27 years and that I have access to the ditch to service it and how I am I going get that through these properties now? I want to make sure, as Mr. Freckleton has pointed out, that that's taken into consideration while we back these properties right up to my property, because the ditch is on their property and has been there for 27 years. Borup: And as was stated earlier, that that is one thing the City and Commission always looks at, but beyond that it's also state law that you will have your historical water delivery so, you're saying you want your five inches? Stewart: No. I want the entire number of inches that it always serves me, which is all of the -- Borup: I thought you just said you have five inches for five acres. Stewart: Right. Pay for five inches for five acres, but you -- in any ditch you get the amount of water that's put into the ditch, which is the amount of water that is allocated to all of this acreage. Borup: Does that ditch end at your property or does it continue on? Stewart: It ends at my property. I'm the end of the line. Borup: So you got everybody's leftover water, too. Stewart: Right. Same amount of water goes to this little acreage right here that comes to mine, except for what's lost. When this ditch is full, all this acreage, and every inch of those acres is all accumulated in that one ditch and, then, each one uses it all one time and we move to the next one and each one uses it. It takes me 24 hours to irrigate my place, but it takes weeks to irrigate the other, but none of them could irrigate it without the entire head of water. I don't want the water moved out of this ditch, because there is no farmland there anymore, because, then, I wouldn't be able to water. Borup: We will get some -- Stewart: That's the amount of water I've had for 27 years and I don't want it to disappear on me. Borup: I understand what you're saying, but are you saying that's the amount of water that you're legally entitled to? Stewart: Yes. That was talked about. Borup: Okay. Stewart: All of it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 67 of 90 Borup: We will get some comments from the developer on that. Anything else? Stewart: That's the only thing I think I have any control over. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward? Rydeman: Carl Rydeman, 770 West. McMillan Road. We live in the neighborhood center and we kind of wonder -- Borup: So, you have this property here? Rydeman: Yes. That's it. Borup: That whole -- Rydeman: The little one there. Borup: That little one right here? Rydeman: The postage stamp piece. Borup: Okay. Rydeman: And we know that the city has adopted the plan of having a neighborhood center and if they put this big shopping center at the corner of McMillan and Meridian, will there still be any need for any commercial area in the neighbor center? Will it still be supported by the number of houses that are around there? That's basically my question, since the city has basically adopted that neighborhood plan and now that's going to change, so what's that going to do to our land? That's my question. Borup: Okay. I think we can have them answer that. Zaremba: I have a question that goes along with that. In the Comprehensive Plan, things like parks and schools are just short of indicated in the general area that we think somewhere in that neighborhood that ought to be. Is that also true of the neighborhood centers? Are they just sort of in that area or are they supposed to be specifically exactly, where they are marked? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, there was a great deal of thought that went into requiring the neighborhood centers be located at the half mile to pull them away from the intersections. They are a half circle. It's very hard to plan a neighborhood center in a half circle dimension, so there would have to be some degree float and some degree of flexibility to allow development of that to happen. There was specific intention of placing those at the half-mile where a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 68 of 90 collector street would be located to provide interconnectivity for the rest of that one-mile section. Borup: Okay. Do we have someone else? Come on forward, sir. Aschenbrenner: Ken Aschenbrenner, 4990 North Meridian Road. I have approximately 100 acres east of this project across Meridian Road. With regard to the easement situation for the trunk line and whether or not I will be held hostage, a little background. Mr. Johnson got three easements for the Wolf property approximately two to three years ago. The last one is due in 2008. When he first secured these, he called up and asked would I like to jump on board for 2010 and I said absolutely not. I don't want to wait that long. With regard to it being hard to farm over a trunk line that's established, what was it, in '76 when Cherry Village first started out there with the golf course, that line came across my dad's place with four manholes that were buried two to three feet below the surface. Yes, it interrupted farming for that year of installation, but we farmed over it for the next 20 years with no problem. The other issue I wanted to address is the irrigation ditches and the need for those to be laid out and where they are going to be routed. It's kind of complicated. Some of the ditches carry both the live water and wastewater, so, yes, some of these parcels downstream on Lochsa will be transferring their live water out, but those tiles will still be carrying some wastewater. They have got a right of say through that needs to be addressed where it's going to go in the long run when everything is done and where is it all going to fit together? That's all I have. Borup: Questions for Mr. Aschenbrenner? Maybe just one. It sounds like you may be one that would be interested in a sewer line to your property sooner than later. Aschenbrenner: Absolutely. Centers: Could you point out your location, sir? Aschenbrenner: Starting where the -- in the middle of the section to the south to the corner of McMillan. A half a mile and 1,700 feet. Mathes: Is that the red farmhouse? The red house the red and, then, there is a Spanish style on that street. Aschenbrenner: Yes. I'm south of them. Mathes: You're south of them. Okay. Aschenbrenner: I have had people inquiring about it, when they can get sewer service. If it's going to be 10, 15 years from now, then, these fellows are the only guys who are interested in my place at their price and their time frame, which is way out there. Borup: Are you saying the others would be willing to go in and put that half-mile of trunk line in at their expense? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 69 of 90 Aschenbrenner: I would assume that whoever would be interested in buying our property would want to negotiate something. It's not just my place there are several other parcels in that -- Borup: Is this your place here? Aschenbrenner: Yes. There are several other places in that section. There is even an area farther upstream than that. We are all going to be waiting for these phases to come through here. That's hardly a level playing field, I don't think. Borup: That may not be, but that's the way it's always been. Aschenbrenner: Well, these guys didn't have to wait for Lochsa their first proposal over a year ago was to start their first phase on Ten Mile. Now, it's moved up to Linder, which solved these guys' problem. Lochsa, obviously, routed a trunk line across there. Borup: With agreement -- Aschenbrenner: Correct. Borup: -- with this developer, yes. That's true. Any other questions? Thank you. Aschenbrenner: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Are you representing the neighbor the neighboring project? McKay: Yes, sir. Becky McKay -- do you want to take a break? Borup: Well -- McKay: That's fine with me. Borup: Is that all right or did you want to leave? McKay: Yes, sir. That's fine. Centers: Just five minutes. Borup: Do we have anyone else, other than -- besides Becky? I think that -- let's take a short break right now. (Recess.) Borup: Okay. We are ready to reconvene. We've had a short break. Becky McKay, you were ready to come forward? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 70 of 90 McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Eagle. I'm representing a property owner -- a potential property owner down -- or upstream from this particular development Paramount. What I brought this evening for you to take a look at is the JUB Meridian City Sewer Master Plan, which indicates the line -- trunk line locations and, then, the proposed sizes of these trunk lines. As you can see here, this is Ten Mile Road, this being Chinden Boulevard. This is the North Slough Trunk coming off of the White Drain Trunk and, then, going in the easterly direction. At Linder and Meridian Road is the proposed Paramount project and, then, as you can see, this trunk goes on another mile over to Locust Grove, splits and T's going south and north and, then, it has another leg here and a third leg going on one more -- one quarter mile west of Eagle Road. In my discussions with the City Council and the Public Works staff in the past concerning these trunk lines, there was discussion on priorities. Obviously, the city had to set forth priorities on when these trunks as far as construction would take place, whether they would be a city project or whether they be a private project. The White Drain Trunk was the number one priority and the city, obviously, finished that project. They told me the second priority was the South Slough Trunk, which they are just finishing up now, boring Eagle Road just south of Ustick. The third priority I was told would be the North Slough Trunk. Not that the city would necessarily allocate the dollars to build that trunk, but that is the priority in which they saw the growth and the extension of those trunks taking place. Obviously, it's on its proper time line and what I'm here tonight to discuss with you is the condition that Mr. Freckleton placed upon the applicant and the applicant is opposed to. The property that I am representing is located right here, it comes down, fronts on McMillan Road, and, then, the property comes up like -- the property comes up here and it's kind of shaped like an L. Farwest Development has options on that particular piece of property. They asked me to come this evening to represent their interest. Commissioner Borup asked a question, you know, is there any proposed projects planned east of this project. To answer his question, yes, there is. We have a concept it has approximately 460 single-family dwellings, with collectors and open space. It's on CAD, we have a computerized version, and we are going through our refining process. It takes place and, then, we start our procedures going through staff, ACHD, on pre- application conferences and getting feedback on our concept, which is our standard procedure. One thing I would like to mention is the fact that this north Meridian area has been discussed in great detail. A lot of time and money has been spent on planning this North Meridian Area and one thing that's come out of all that planning was the issue of providing infrastructure, which, one, not only benefited the subject development, but benefited the North Meridian community as a whole. That infrastructure -- you know, we talk about schools, we talk about parks, interconnectivity, collectors, mixed-uses, but that also includes utilities such as sewer and water facilities and the extension of those in a timely fashion. I'd like to indicate that the city is not asking the applicant to design that trunk, they are not asking that applicant to build that trunk, they are just saying we want you to provide appropriate easements in alignment with your proposed streets at the time of submittal or prior to submittal of your first Final Plat. I understand the complexity of multiple property owners. Almost all of the projects that I have had out in this north Meridian area we have dwelt with multiple property Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 71 of 90 owners and options and some properties being owned in fee simple. In Bridgetower, for example, Mr. Bues and Primeland Development owned the majority of that property, with the exception of 80 acres. Eighty acres was still owned by Young Lands Limited. In our options with them, it was clearly stated that the White Drain Truck would have to traverse the 80 acres that they still, to this day, own and they would have to grant an easement to the City of Meridian for construction of that easement, a permanent and temporary construction easement. They did that and so it's not uncommon for the property owner -- obviously, they are cooperating and consenting to the submittal of these applications. They are, obviously, going to have to sign the development agreement if they still own the property in fee simple. Therefore, when you go to them and say, you know, we are going to have to have a sewer easement, this is why, this is what the city is asking of us, the city has always been really good about working with us we were trying to plat this particular piece of property. The Young property is still being farmed, they worked with us, minimized the impact on his farm procedures also, the issue of compensation. Almost all of that White Drain easement that was granted to the city was granted without compensation. My client -- I don't have any clients that required or requested any monetary compensation. We had to take responsibility of bringing our streets down, making sure that our boundaries are right, that the ditch locations were accurate. That we knew where we were going to relocate the ditches, so that there were certain parts of the skeleton of our project that we were set. That allowed us to go ahead, grant those easements, and dictate with precision where are our streets were going to go, so that that sewer line in the future did not adversely affect us. They talked about decisions being, you know, irrevo -- I can't say that today. Wardle: Irrevocable. McKay: There you go. Thank you. I don't think that's the case. We have done it in Bridgetower, we have done it in Lochsa, we have done it in Sundance, Cedar Springs did it, any of those projects where those trunks were going on through and heading on eastward to service properties, we all worked around it and we all made it work. One thing, that White Drain Trunk and those White Drain easements, they didn't just benefit the city they benefited properties downstream. They benefited other developers. I guess I have a fear when a developer says I think that the other property owner should come to workout and us the details, that always bothers me, because it can translate into big dollars. There are a lot of property owners, as you can well see downstream, a lot of people, you know, that land is their asset. Like Mr. Aschenbrenner indicated, without sewer his land has the value of agricultural land that some day may have sewer. With the promise of sewer and only -- the promise can only be given through easements, then, his land has value. A lot of these farmers out in this area are reaching a point -- I think the testimony was given at the Council the other day from Mr. Davis on our Parkstone project I'm just too old to keep farming. I need to retire. All my money is tied up in the land and most of the property is developing around me and I need to get out of this and I guess that's something that we have to take into consideration. I guess to wrap it up I'd ask this body to leave that condition. I feel that it's just part of doing business and, like I said, I think it goes along with what we were trying to create in that north Meridian area. A spirit of cooperation between developers Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 72 of 90 providing the necessary infrastructure and services to create a nice north Meridian community. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? McKay: Thank you. Borup: Does the Commission have any questions from staff or any discussion before we have the applicant make his final remarks? Are you going to be doing that, Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and Commission Members. Mike Wardle. Staff properly points out that you hold a hearing, staff provides their input, the applicant provides their input, the public provides its input, the Commission makes a decision, and, obviously, that's what we are requesting the Commission to do tonight. I think it's been adequately expressed of the differences of opinion, but there are conditions proposed by staff, we have made some proposals, it would be up to the Commission now to weigh those and to render the decision in order to move this forward. I would point out that much of what we have discussed relative to this project -- actually, there is, -- it sounds like there has been a lot of contention. In reality, we are talking about a sewer easement question, you have got conditions that state what your staff recommendation is, the irrigation issues, you have got a recommendation for that as well. Lot 57, Block 3, you have got a recommendation for that as well. You have got recommendations for the stubs and the micropaths and so I think -- I'm hopeful that the Commission can render a decision on these matters, can weigh staff, our concerns, and the places that we agree, let's quickly erase, and move this project forward. I would just simply note -- I'm going to just say Ms. Becky, because I'm going to have to see how she spells her name, but Ms. Becky said correctly that this -- there is a spirit of cooperation. It’s, actually, noted that that cooperation has accomplished a great deal in the case of the city being the catalyst to get one area through. Mr. Turnbull noted that it was cooperation that actually brought the Lochsa and Paramount issues together. Mr. Aschenbrenner actually stated that for those parties that wanted to get all of this eventually fit together, they would be able to negotiate something. There is a process to accomplish all of these things for those that have been proposed for development, as well as those that have yet to come forward. We ask that you do make a decision and a recommendation that the matters, I believe, are clearly before you and you certainly have enough language to consider on how to resolve those. I think Mr. Turnbull wants to make one final comment and, then, if there are any questions we will certainly answer those. Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will try to be brief. There are just a few things that I would like to address and point out and I will start with Lot 57, Block 3. The staff has recommended that that -- this be deleted from this application for one reason only and that's because it doesn't have interconnectivity to the rest of the subdivision. We have a long history of dealing pro-actively with the School District. When the School District came to us and wanted to acquire the high school site, we worked with them. I can tell you instances -- I had the opportunity to purchase the site Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 73 of 90 to where the current Eagle High School is and I declined to get between an owner and the high school. I had the same opportunity on the Eagle Middle School and that property. The property owner came to me and wanted me to bid against the School District. I declined. I had the same opportunity in a project which you now have there as Baldwin Park. I was that close to a contract with the property owner and he said, well, I'm -- the middle school -- the School District wants a middle school site here and I just said I'm not even going to talk to you. I have that kind of history and I also have the history of providing them quality school sites. When they came to us for a high school site, as you can probably appreciate, those were the hardest sites for them to acquire. Not necessarily something everybody wants in their backyard. We worked with them and, therefore, we created disconnect between our -- the bulk of our project and that corner. I'm here to tell you that I don't believe that that corner will ever be developed as a single family residential. I don't think anybody here probably thinks that it will. We just choose to recognize that reality now, instead of later. You know, it's going to be up to you to make your finding. We think it's the appropriate use and we would ask for that to be approved as we have applied for it and, if not, it will probably come back later as a straight zoning issue, but it, in all likelihood, will never be single family residential. Borup: Mr. Turnbull, maybe while you're on that. Turnbull: Yes. Borup: One quick question. Turnbull: Yes. Borup: It was alluded to earlier that the development would be anticipated to be along with the adjoining property. Is that still your feeling? Turnbull: I don't know that was the -- what was meant. I think it was meant that when that other parcel was developed at some point and at that point connections could be worked out between the two, whether we develop that or somebody else develops that, I don't know that they will coincide -- Borup: Well, yes. I may have misstated on that, but I was thinking more of the design. Turnbull: Yes. They could be integrated together. Correct. I think that's something that you could -- you and your staff could look at when a detailed Conditional Use application came in on Lot 57. Borup: Is that something you would be comfortable to commit to? Turnbull: Yes. Borup: That that would not be -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 74 of 90 Turnbull: As a condition -- Borup: -- designed until the adjoining property was also designed? Turnbull: Or that we have a design that would provide for future connectivity to that site when it did, in fact, come in for an application. Borup: Okay. Turnbull: And staff talks a great deal about the size of the commercial areas and I want to speak to that briefly. Carl talked about this neighborhood center that's shown in a semi-circle in blue. I attended all -- most all of those Comprehensive Plan Hearings and this Commission wrestled with the issue of neighborhood centers. It got kicked up to the City Council level with the recommendation and Commissioner -- Chairman Borup you can probably iterate that better than I can. It was a nice concept, but you were not requiring that to be locked in stone, that these locations were conceptual, that you would let the market determine what happened in those instances. The City Council found the same as you did and City Council Member Nary was on this Commission when those decisions were made and he was on the City Council when those decisions were made. In reference to that neighborhood center, even the north Meridian planning area still shows a village center located in that area. I want to reference a section that I'm very familiar with, because I developed 320 acres of it and it's bounded by Chinden Boulevard, Eagle Road, McMillan Road, and Cloverdale. Thirty years ago nobody would have anticipated that Hewlett-Packard would come in and put in a major facility with -- I don't know how many square feet, but four or five thousand employees. Fifteen years ago nobody would have anticipated that the Boise Research Center would be developed across the road -- and that's a project we developed -- with in excess of a million square feet of office space and 3,500 employees. Nobody would have anticipated that that area would be developed like it is, that a Target Store would be located at Eagle and Chinden. You know, ten years ago nobody would have anticipated that. It happened and I think that we are saying let's just recognize now that this area is going to urbanize and we better be providing the services that are required in that area. Is 500,000 square feet the right answer? I don't think any of us can answer that at this point. The market will dictate exactly how much gets built and exactly what those kind of uses will be. We are just choosing to recognize and designate some areas for those kinds of uses now. It would probably be the easy thing just to develop that as entirely residential. I could probably move through the project faster and just be on my way, but we are trying to create a truly mixed use development, that's what you see before you here, I think it recognizes the realities of what will happen over the next ten to 15 years. Then, finally, let me just respond -- well, I don't want to beat that sewer easement issue to death anymore. It's a condition that we can't meet. Mrs. McKay -- I keep thinking Bowcutt, but Becky referenced some agreements that her clients had with a landowner that required them to cooperate in granting easements to the city. We have no such agreement with the parties that we have optioned property from. We can't compel any easements be granted, we can't grant those easements on their behalf. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 75 of 90 Borup: I assume they still want to be annexed, though. Turnbull: Excuse me? Borup: Those property owners still want to be -- Turnbull: Well, I don't know. They may just say withdraw that from the annexation if that's going to be the requirement. Borup: Okay. Turnbull: So, you know, I guess we are asking the city not to put us in a position -- you know if property owners had come to us and wanted to negotiate something, they would have been free to do that. The fact that they have gone, you know, around us to the city and tried to get the city to enforce a requirement for their benefit, I think is a little bit distasteful to us and -- oh, there would be a further point that I need to make. There is a reference in the agreement to -- requiring latecomer fee -- us to pay latecomer fees for any extensions of the sewer and water lines and so forth. As I mentioned before, we had entered into a contractual arrangement with the developers of Lochsa, Farwest Developers, in which we have a cost sharing agreement on the extension of those utilities and, thereafter, there should be no latecomer fee agreement. We have and will participate in those though expenses to bring those services -- those utilities to our site. Do you have anything, JoAnn? Borup: Any questions for Mr. Turnbull? I had one, you touched on it, and I realize that's a neighborhood center. You're right, there was some concern on, you know, location, practicality, and I like the concept, but I don't see a lot of difference here on what they have done, rather than -- they have taken the same neighborhood center concept and just moved it to the corner. The design there with the access road around in one of the -- I think Mr. Wardle showed us that concept, they did that in other areas, I think it accomplishes, in my mind, the same thing that was trying to accomplish there. I do have a question that I do have some concern on, though. Turnbull: May I just address what you just said here just briefly? If the concept of the neighborhood center is depicted here in this light blue shaded area, is that where you're going to have your Albertson's store and you're going to have a significant amount of commercial development around it. That's just not going to happen and that's the testimony you received when the Comprehensive Plan came through. Those uses are going to go at the intersections and that's where they properly belong, because if you put them at those mid section points, you just created an area where the heavy commercial areas are located that only have two access points. It makes sense to put them at the intersections that have, you know, four way access points. We have, in our plan, included what we describe and what we envision as neighborhood centers. We call them village centers, because we believe that's where those kind of -- you know, a little bit lower intensity uses like professional office space, dentists' offices, doctors' offices, those kind of things, that's where they properly belong. We have included those Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 76 of 90 in our plan and they can also be included down in this neighborhood center section down here. You know, it might be that they only have, you know, 20,000 square feet of such uses. I would point out back in the section I was talking about before, the inclusion of a million square feet in Boise Research Center and 100 -- almost 200,000 square feet in the Target center area, did not preclude the construction of professional offices at the mid section point on Eagle Road. Those still are there and they are thriving. Also on McMillan Road next to the elementary school. Those -- but they are lower intensity uses. That's what I believe somebody that's been in the business for awhile is what is -- is the market realities and what is going to develop out over time in this area and I think it's appropriate and it's practical and attractive and should serve the city in this area well. I apologize for a lengthy explanation. Borup: That's fine. Again, I realize this is not before us, but -- and that's the development of this commercial area. I realize ACHD made a statement that any access points need to be 440 feet from the intersection. The Preliminary Plat -- it looked like it was indicating access points along there. This doesn't show up, but some of the others did. Oh, right over here. These do right here. These three along here. I personally have some concern with some of the access points too close to the intersection, but I guess I'm stating that now, just for -- if I'm still around, but -- when that project comes. I would like to -- I would never like to have something -- that's a traffic thing. That was one of the big testimony we had at the Preliminary Plat -- I mean at the Comprehensive Plan Hearings and just about every time we have anything that's what the concern is and I understood that was one of the purposes of the access road around it, to eliminate -- eliminate the traffic at the intersection points. I don't know if you have any comment on that or -- Turnbull: Commissioner Borup, when we come in with a specific application for that area, we will have to address any access points. Obviously, there is going to be some access somewhere along here. I can't tell you how far from the intersection that might be, but this loop road here also provides a double access and provides the way, you know, for all this connection back into the residential portion, so, you know, there is going to have to be some access points along this area. Borup: I realize that, but not every few hundred feet. Turnbull: Correct. We are -- we have testified in several -- the Comprehensive Plan and that North Meridian planning efforts that those access points need to be controlled, so we understand your concern there. Borup: Well, that's part of my, I guess, feelings in supporting shifting the neighborhood centers, that did not cause some of those potential problems, but I think it's taking the same concept and just moving it to the corner, you have still got the same density gradients, and et cetera. Any other questions -- any questions of Mr. Turnbull? Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 77 of 90 Turnbull: I'd just like to finish by saying I appreciate the work staff has -- and I appreciate Dave McKinnon's comments at the beginning. We have agreement on 95 percent of what is before you here. We have spent a lot of time on just a few points, but we believe it is a really good quality plan. I hope you get the chance to come out and see what we have done in Heritage Commons, as we have put in all the amenities up front. We are going to have a ribbon cutting ceremony next week and that's a similar feel of project that you're going to see here and, actually, something different than -- I hope you like it, because we are quite excited about it. We think it has a lot of the same attributes. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Did staff have any final questions or comments? Of course, you also have an opportunity to say anything else as we discuss this. Mr. Freckleton does have a comment. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just had one little bit of rebuttal that I have got to put out and that is Mr. Turnbull stated that -- as fact an assumption that someone had come to us to try and compel us to get easements through the property. That's not the case. I just wanted to clarify that point. Borup: I guess I took that when he said it when they came to the city they meant here tonight. I don't know if that's what was -- is that what you meant, when you came here tonight? Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, we were told that by city staff, not Mr. Freckleton the city was contacted by the developer. Borup: Okay. Which is the same developer you had your previous agreement with, though? Commissioners, I'm thinking we are -- well, as was stated, we have four main things that we -- to discussion, four main issues that there is some question on. I'm wondering if it would be good to perhaps close the public testimony portion, but maybe not close the Public Hearing, in case we would like to have any other input. Would that be reasonable? Okay. That would be our intention. Public testimony would be closed. I think we won't close the Public Hearing at this time, if the other Commissioners agree. I'm thinking maybe lets -- the issues to talk about -- unless there is some other things to be added, are that of the sewer easement, the irrigation ditches showing their locations, Lot 57, and the stub streets and micropaths. Anything else that -- Zaremba: The quantity of nonresidential use. Borup: Is that a concern for you? Zaremba: Well, I'm swayed by the applicant's discussion. I mean they -- Borup: Okay. You're saying you'd like to discuss it. Zaremba: It's worth discussing it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 78 of 90 Borup: Okay. Which one do you want to handle first? How about one of the easy ones? The stub streets and micropaths, would that be an easy one or a good one to start on? Centers: Yes. That's one as far as -- Borup: Okay. Let's start with the micropath. Centers: Well, the staff admitted that their one micropath that I'm looking at here, that they required -- that they weren't necessarily against eliminating that, so I don't think we have a problem with the micropaths. Borup: I tried to do somewhat of a measurement taking -- going through here, down these streets and around and going up here and around from this same intersection here. It appeared to me like it was about -- the difference is about four lots. Centers: Yes. I think staff was -- Borup: It was pretty minor. Okay. We are saying just the one micropath as -- Zaremba: That works for me. Borup: Stub streets. Centers: As far as the stub streets, I pretty much agree with the applicant, personally. Maybe -- Commissioner Zaremba and I were talking about it earlier, maybe the relocation of -- Zaremba: Let me pick up from there. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: This one has been agreed to. This one is in dispute. As we were talking about, this is an area of compromise, instead of having both of those, having one that's about halfway in between. I would ask the question: Would an alignment here -- this becomes A and there is no D. What's going to happen -- yes, there is one over here. Just in thinking of what this developer is going to have to do, I could see this being of greater use. Essentially, what I'm saying is, is up here you move B to be somewhere around here, down here you move A to somewhere around there. You don't do D and you don't do C. To add to that, I would leave this one where it is going north, if it's got to be just one, have it go north the way it was. Staff comment? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba the last statement you made there, if it has to be one. It doesn't have to be one. You have the choice to create two. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 79 of 90 applicant's requested to make a choice, but the choice is not A or B, it's A, B, or C. You can have it, you can have both, and you can have neither. Zaremba: I'm kind of swayed by the argument that you leave an orphan piece of property that's hard to do with. McKinnon: So, you're requesting that they keep E, but not do the existing stub street? Zaremba: No. Keep the one that is on the drawing and not do E. I think that -- they asked for it to be one or the other and I'm expressing an opinion. McKinnon: Okay. Centers: You have one here, Dave. McKinnon: Got it. Zaremba: Just -- my opinion is that it would leave an orphaned piece of property that would be difficult to deal with if they -- Borup: Well, the mistake we made is that property owner -- the property owner did not say what his preference was. I wish he would have. Centers: Doug Stewart? Lives right here. Borup: Yes. Centers: The map that Mr. Wardle provided has -- Borup: I had the impression that he wanted to keep his rural atmosphere and didn't really want to -- Centers: Nice. Yes. Borup: I mean that was his very first comment, that he'd rather not have any development around him. It appears that that was not a concern. Now that I think about it, I think maybe that wasn't a concern for him. If he would have had an interest, he should have said something. Centers: Five-acre parcel. Borup: Well, I know if I was him I would have asked for it, but he did not. Well, I think we need to -- Zaremba: Well, we've already discussed that G seems to satisfy the problem. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 80 of 90 Borup: And I think that satisfies ACHD's comment also. Centers: Yes. Yes and the other one is just a curb cut. You know, F, which -- Borup: Okay. Now, your comments left things a little bit open -- I mean unclear as to -- or are you saying we don't necessarily need to specify, just there be one of those locations. You're talking about moving this one down? Centers: Uh-huh. Borup: And lining right up with that street? That's what you're proposing or leave it up to the developer? Zaremba: Leave it up to the developer to be within -- well, it would either have to align or offset a certain distance. Alignment would probably make more sense. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think I have everything that Commissioner Zaremba had. We are going to move A to the south. That's this one. We are going to move it to the south to line up with lot -- this lot and street. We are going to eliminate D. Centers: Correct. McKinnon: And, then, we are going to move B to the south. Eliminate C. We are going to go to E. E is eliminated. Not going to deal with E F would be eliminated. G would remain. I think those are all the changes that you had. Borup: Well, this is just -- this is discussion. Maybe we could get some input from Mr. Wardle. Looking at that again, if this lines up right here, how do you develop over here? That's got this street running right up against the property line almost. I think that would be difficult to do anything on this property. If we are really looking at having a stub street come in here to do something, it probably needs to be closer to the middle of the project -- or the property. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, could we just work with staff on that. I agree with the concept of getting one in there that works -- yes. We will work with staff. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Do you have an opinion about the A - B? Wardle: I like this. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 81 of 90 Borup: Okay. It sounds like this area here is the only one that may need to be decided where it goes. I think down here -- doesn't do any good to have a stub street along the back of your property. Zaremba: Yes. I agree. The straight alignment isn't going to work. Borup: So, it would either stay up there or move down here or something. Well, down here is kind of close to that one. All right. How about -- yes. We eliminated the one micropath and kept the other. Discussion on the irrigation showing on the plat I guess my comment there was exactly what Mr. Freckleton said it's always been required of every other subdivision. Zaremba: And I think the preliminary decisions can be made and shown on the Preliminary Plat. The word preliminary is operative here. For the sake of discussion, something needs to be shown. Centers: I agree. Borup: Okay. Lot 57. Zaremba: I would side with staff again and ask that this be removed from this project. Borup: Even if there was no development until -- Zaremba: Well, it just -- I am so attracted to how this is designed and I'm comfortable with saying what was envisioned as a neighbor center should be turned into this village concept that -- Borup: Well, I thought the village -- this is the outer village concept. Zaremba: It's bigger, but I can see a similar thing happening over here, which would require that piece of property to be involved at the same time. I don't know if it's going to go that way, but I certainly would hate to preclude that option by having this develop separately and I agree that it doesn't really connect to what we are doing right now. Borup: Well, that I agree. Would you visualize that it be developed in anything else than C-G, commercial of some size? Zaremba: Probably something like that. Centers: Well, I would agree with Mr. Turnbull and was there at the time when we talked about neighborhood centers. The concept was great, but if you could get developers to do it, because it was market driven and regardless of how nice it would be for people to have an Albertson's here and people walk to it, that's great, but sometimes you just can't get all the people together and all the landowners together. I totally agree with it. That's going to be commercial. The corners, I don't know how you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 82 of 90 can get away from them -- from the corners. As far as it being deleted, you know, I think you have to go by what's in the land use exceptions for a planned unit development located in proximity to and convenient walking distance, utilizing one or more of the main vehicular accesses to the primary use site, providing pedestrian and bicycle pathway connections, orienting buildings on the exception site. Facilitate vehicular and/or pedestrian access from the primary use. We haven't -- it doesn't do any of that. Those are four different things. The use permitted by the exception or neighborhood of community serving in size, character, and not regional and are not detrimental to adjacent neighborhoods and location character. It's -- you know, it doesn't have any connectivity. I didn't -- no one disputed that. Mr. Turnbull didn't. Mr. Wardle didn't. You have a -- you know, you're connected by the high school, which is not really connectivity for the excepted use. You have a homeowner right here. I assume there is a home there. I would be -- and I think the applicant referred to that, that if they want to go commercial with that later, they can apply and we will annex it and zone it and see the -- what's going to go there. Borup: And I agree and they stated that they would probably do the one -- the thing to consider if that does come in as a separate, they are not under the same requirements to have any connectivity at all. If that's in at this time with some requirements, we can control that somewhat. If that comes in as a separate project, I don't know that we have that. I guess unless we wanted to put the same requirements at that time. Centers: How are you going to require connectivity now? Borup: Well, you say it can't be developed until there is connectivity to the adjoining -- Centers: Where is connectivity going to be obtained? Borup: Well, it would be to this parcel. Centers: They don't have that parcel included. Borup: Right. No, they don't own that, but -- Centers: Right. You know, I guess -- Borup: But they said they would -- they would do that at the time they developed, but I guess Mr. Centers -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, as part of an annexation request we can require interconnectivity prior to annexing the property, so we wouldn't lose our opportunity to request interconnectivity at this time if we don't include it now. Borup: You're saying on the new project we would require the same -- essentially the same thing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 83 of 90 McKinnon: Absolutely we are going to require that on that. Borup: Yes. That's what I was saying. That would be the other option. Zaremba: Well, if I understood the applicant correctly, they would not like to see the whole rest of the project die on this piece being included or not. Borup: I don't think so. Is there a consensus there a half a consensus? Rohm: Kick it out. Borup: Okay. Okay. Mr. Zaremba, you said that you wanted to discuss the amount of commercial space, which was one of the staff -- Zaremba: Well, it was and I understand their concern. This is not a location for a regional size shopping center, for instance, but the development of it is going to be market driven. The applicant has experience with these kinds of things, much more than I do, and feels that there will be at some time a market for it. It would have to come back to us for a CUP and I know we are not going to put a Target on the corner or a Wal-Mart or anything. Centers: Why not? Zaremba: Well -- Borup: What do you do when you have that many square feet? If you've got that many square feet of space, it's got to be something big. Zaremba: Or a series of smaller ones in that much space. I mean not to suggest to the applicant what they should do, but I -- was it Silverstone that did condominiums in a piece of the building that size. Borup: Well, one thing, I think we lose concept of size here a little bit, because of the size of this project. How many feet is that? Either way, you're right, it would be back for a CUP. The statement that that would be -- the amount of square feet was more than intended is true. It's more than is intended for the square mile, but if a project like this goes in, you know, if commercial goes in, it's going to draw from more than just one mile, too, and you're not going to see -- I'm assuming you're not going to see it on the adjoining -- Centers: Well, the 100,000 that was arrived at by staff was off the Comp Plan and I agree with Mr. Turnbull that whether 100,000 is right, who knows. Five hundred thousand could be right. I think the bottom line is it's market driven. Borup: He could be back in ten years wanting to put it into residential. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 84 of 90 Centers: Yes. Exactly. In fact, I already thought of that so, I don't know. I don't have any objection to that. You take Lot 57 out at this time and that's really a lot less issue. I don't know how many square feet are in Lot 57, so -- I don't think it's an issue. McKinnon: It's 19.2 acres. Centers: What? McKinnon: 19.2 acres. Centers: Yes. Borup: So, are we saying that's okay if that's out? Zaremba: Well, our other option would be to say some of that has to be residential. This design, which is agreed is an attractive design to me, I would not be comfortable starting to micromanage and say, oh, no, change this to something else. Other than the other issues we have, like everybody says, it's 95 percent a very attractive project. Centers: And I suspect -- or not suspect. It's a possibility this is going to be the last phase of the project. This could turn into residential as we say, with just a little corner here for L-O or whatever and I wouldn't object to that later. I think the applicant may know that, too. It depends on the market. Borup: Okay. That brings us down to the sewer easement issue. Centers: Saved the easiest for last. Zaremba: Sorry for the difficulty, but I'm inclined to require it. We have required it on all other projects. Centers: Well, I would agree on the annexation part and I guess that's a must, in my opinion. Borup: To say that we have required it on all other projects is maybe a little bit beyond, but the scope of this project is, as already stated, different than anything we have seen. I mean it's the largest project that we have had. I mean Lochsa was real close and Bridgetower was right in there, but -- so it is a little different in that regard. The others that have done that have been, you know, a little bit difference putting seven or 800 feet of sewer line, as opposed to a mile. Zaremba: Smaller projects. Borup: Right. Zaremba: I think it's proportional. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 85 of 90 Borup: Any other comment on that? Centers: No, but I have a new one. Borup: I guess the only comment on that is the landowners -- I mean if that's the way the Commission feels, if the landowner doesn't want to agree to that, they can chose not to be annexed, I guess. Centers: Right. Yes. Exactly. Borup: Okay. Do you have another one? Centers: No, I don't. I'm not going to bring up a can of worms. Borup: Did you learn your lesson from the earlier one? Centers: No. It's parks, but forget it. Borup: Oh. Centers: Forget it. I'm happy. The high school -- Borup: Okay. Centers: We have two school sites, a high school, and an elementary. You bet. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I have talked with our new Parks Director about this project and he's given it a thumbs up. He's very appreciative of the high school, the elementary school, and the open space that they have provided. Centers: Well, you say to review the Parks Department memo, but I never found it. That's the reason that was highlighted. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, we were promised one and they did come to my office and we did sit down and talk, both Elroy and Doug -- Doug Strong. Thank you. We did talk about it, but they never did produce a report. I'm sorry for that. Borup: But he was -- you said he gave his approval? McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Okay. I guess we can probably close the hearing now. Centers: Yes. I'm comfortable making a motion. I have made notes and if -- unless you want to. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 86 of 90 Zaremba: I'm comfortable seconding your motions. Centers: Because I didn't -- it's big bucks for every day that a developer has to sit and wait or be postponed, so I'm glad that we -- if we are going to stay this late, let's get something done. Borup: Are we comfortable with -- we talked about having a clean application go to City Council. I think the only thing that we are even not that way is the stub streets. Centers: No. I think we are okay. Borup: That's very minor. That can be worked out with staff. Centers: Yes. Well, I intended to put some -- I've got it right here. Zaremba: Does staff remember anything we might have missed? Freckleton: The irrigation. Borup: We mentioned that. Centers: Yes. It's staying in. Freckleton: But I mean as far as the revisions. Zaremba: Identify that -- Borup: Oh, yes. Zaremba: New locations whether it's an easement or not, at least the new locations. Centers: We were going to amend that in the plat? Zaremba: Show them on the plat. Centers: Yes as staff had requested. Yes. Right. Right. Well, we need to close the Public Hearing. I would so move. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 87 of 90 Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval for Item 6 on our agenda, AZ 03-006, it's a request for annexation and zoning of 397.11 acres, minus Lot 57, Block 3, which is 19.2 acres, approximately, plus or minus, from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8, R-40, L-O, and C-G zones -- stop. Do we have any C-G left after we take out Lot 57? Okay. Thank you. For proposed Paramount Sub by Paramount, LLC, west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road, including all staff comments as indicated on Page 8. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval for Item 7 on our agenda, PP 03-004, request Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots, and 37 other lots -- Borup: Would it be 63 now? Centers: Thirty-six -- would it be 36 other lots now? Well, why don't we do it this way, just include it minus Lot 7. Borup: Fifty-seven. Centers: Fifty-seven, Block 3. Would that be appropriate? Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots and 37 other lots on 392.17 acres in a proposed R-8, R-40, L-O and C-G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC, west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road, minus the indicated Lot 57, Block 3 and said acreage. The conditions will be specific to the staff's site-specific conditions, any comments referred to by staff and applicant regarding comments won't be addressed, because we are talking just site-specific; correct, Dave? Site conditions of approval of Preliminary Plat because the applicant had addressed some comments, which I'm going to say are irrelevant. We are just going to include the site-specific conditions as conditions of approval. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, there is a few things in the site- specific conditions of approval. I went through their letter on page four -- Centers: Yes. I'm going to include anything in the site-specific, but he also addressed comment throughout the report, which are irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. McKinnon: I agree. Centers: Okay site-specific conditions of approval on the Preliminary Plat. Start on Page 10 of the staff report, Item 1 to be included as written. Item 2 as written, Item 3 to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 88 of 90 be amended -- to be amended to allow a two-foot lattice on top of the four-foot. I think that would be adequate. Item four provides for a 20-foot landscape buffer. Did we -- Borup: Staff said 15. Centers: Right. Fifteen -- strike 20 and insert 15-foot. McKinnon: We could adopt the modifications as submitted by the applicant for the appropriate number of trees as required by the landscape ordinance. Centers: Well -- and that was referred to in another area and the applicant agreed to that. Borup: That was in their letter. That was their wording appropriate number of trees per landscape. Centers: So, add that, the appropriate number of trees per Landscape Ordinance to Item Number 4. Item Number 5, stay as written. Item Number 6, first sentence, last word, change that to McMillan, instead of Ustick. Item Number 7 as written. Eight, nine -- nine addresses the stub streets and this -- this map or drawing that Mr. Wardle provided will be given to staff or the attorney to include in the record. All of the -- let's just start at 9-A. 9-A, applicant will work with staff to possibly realign or leave in that location as desired. 9-B. Same scenario, to work with staff and relocate downward per agreement with staff 9-C eliminate, 9-D eliminate, 9-F eliminate, and 9-G as is. What comes after G? I skipped E I don't know the alphabet. 9-E eliminate. What I'm looking at doesn't include the green arrows, which were required by staff originally correct? Borup: That was the original plat, the green arrows. Centers: So, those stub streets, in addition to what was submitted on the original plat correct? Thank you. That covers the stub streets. Okay. Item 10, micropaths as submitted in the original plat, wasn't that one originally submitted? Oh, it wasn't? A micropath to be located -- which one were we eliminating? Which one, Dave? Between Lots 10 and 11, we agreed to eliminate? McKinnon: Actually, we agreed to eliminate the first bullet point, between Lots 31 and 18, Block 3. Centers: Micropaths would be required between Lots 10 and 11, Block 11, and eliminate between Lots 31 and 18, Block 3. Item 11 include as is. Second bullet point. You would also add the two-foot of the lattice work to be placed on top of the solid fence would also be allowed. Number 12 as is, Number 13 as is, and Number 14 as is I believe that's the end of motion on the Preliminary Plat. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could maybe jump in before we get a second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 89 of 90 Centers: Sure. Freckleton: Point of clarification. Item Number 1 site-specific conditions on Preliminary Plat that was a reiteration of my annexation and zoning comment regarding the easement. As stated before, I'm okay with you removing that if you feel -- feel like that is an appropriate thing to do. Centers: Well, we have it in the annexation. Freckleton: I think that's where our tooth is, so I'm fine with you removing it if you'd like to in that one. Centers: How does the rest of the Commission feel? Zaremba: I don't mind it in both places. Centers: I don't think it makes a difference to be in both places. You have the tooth at the start, I mean -- okay. Let's leave it as is. Freckleton: There was just a question of the -- the legal question that came up, so -- and, then, Item Number 5 regarding the ditches. Your motion was to keep staff comment the way it was. Our staff comment was that they revise the Preliminary Plat to show how the irrigation drainage ditches are to be treated and I'm just curious when you expect to -- do you expect to see that plat back -- the revised plat back or do you want them to revise it before it goes to City Council? Centers: Yes. Prior to City Council. Freckleton: Ten days? Centers: Right so included on Item 5, Page 11, prior to City Council 10 days prior to City Council. Okay. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Now, I have got to find the CUP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval for Item 8, CUP 03-008, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 764 single family residences, 73 townhomes, 270 apartments, community center, schools and churches in a proposed R-8, R-40, L-O and C-G zone for proposed Paramount Sub by Paramount, LLC, at west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road, less Lot 57, Block 3. Site-specific comments. Conditional use permits start on Page 20. At the bottom, number one, two and three Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 90 of 90 remain as is. Number 4, the -- let me find that. Staff is fine with the applicant's requested action to modify 4-J, line out all lines, all sentences down to the time -- and, then, add the time frame for sales and information trailers is for the duration of the Paramount project. Immediate removal of any approved trailers is required upon completion of project sale. That becomes item 4-J. Item 5 as is. Item 6 as is. Item 7 as is. Add Item 8. This Conditional Use Permit is null and void after 18 month from date of the City Council approval or the date of the Facts and Conclusions of Law or whatever their verbiage is. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. I think that does conclude. That was a long evening. It was a big project. Zaremba: Big project a lot of work. Borup: In the past this would have been two or three Public Hearings, I think. Before we adjourn, Commissioners, just a reminder of our special meeting that is at 6:00. I had 7:00 written down, but -- McKinnon: It's 6:00. Borup: Oh, we got dinner. Centers: Dinner. Mathes: I make a motion to adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:05 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 91 of 90 / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK